Why do guys who bitch all day like "hurr people don't read nowadays" only read contemporary novels?
>>7749750
The only contemporary novels I read are anonymous imageboards desu.
>reading only classics
*tips top hat*
>>7749757
Why wouldn't you though?
You don't want to loiter your mind with recyclable trash, do you now?
>>7749764
Because contemporary novels tackle the issues of the times I am actually living in?
>>7749791
Classics do it 10 times better.
>>7749791
This and they actually speak in the same language we do now, and the people are more familiar because they're people you meet every day. "Classic" novels don't have either of those. The stories and characters are warped by time and so a modern person used to the present day real world can't get anything out of it.
>>7749800
Classic novels aren't the only clasics you know.
>>7749750
>only read contemporary novels
I've been lurking here for less than 3 days and I can already tell that this is objectively wrong, did you even take a look at the catalog? the most discussed novels are shit written by dead/retired authors. If you try to start a thread about any contemporary literature, eg. light novels, you only get shitposting and sages, this is the most normie board in all 4chan I've seen so far, it's literally a subreddit.
>>7749750
I know someone exactly like this, literally only reads whatever is popular at the moment instead of actually exploring literature.
>>7749889
But people on here don't bitch about people not reading enough. OP is talking about people who just feel the need to complain about 'nobody reading' because they're insecure about their intelligence and want to feel special. Just because some of the people they hang around don't read doesn't mean that reader are now like an endangered species. Sure, discussion on here is more about the classics (after all, they are classics for a reason), but as you said, you've only been here three days and plenty of people talk about contemporary novels, just not the vast majority.
I bet most people here can't even name 5 books released from 2000 and now that are worth reading
Requesting that 'Im 70 years old' Harry Potter pasta
>this thread
>>7749989
>they are classics for a reason
let's be honest, people read what they hear in school/college and tend to stick with that, barely anyone cares enough to even try searching outside specific areas, it shows clearly on this board and that's the normies I was talking about.
I might be new here but, am I wrong when I say that most people on this board sperg for example whenever they see a thread about some famous light novel? I've seen posts say that those kind of novels aren't even literature.
If I were to associate a sound to this board, it would be the sound of perpetual fedora tipping tbqh.
>>7749764
I'mma let u finnish, but walt whitman was one of the _worst_ authors of all time. ALL TIME.
>>7749889
The most discussed books are by DFW and Pynchon, one who is contemporary and another who would be if not for a poorly planned incident of auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Almost all of the foreign lit here discussed is contemporary.
>>7749996
>>7749797
Brief History of Seven Killings
A Little Life
Like 5 houellebecq books
Karl Knausgaard's series
3 books by Mo Yan
Soul Mountain and others by Gao Xingjian
Never let me Go and the Buried Giant by Kazuo Ishiguro
Wizard of the Crow by Thiong'o
Baudolino and The Prague Cemetary by Umberto Eco
2666
Not to mention great stuff from the 90s like Saramago and Krasznahorkai and Coetzee
I could go on and on. Contemp lit is doing ok
>>7749750
There's a breed of Very Serious People, who read The Guardian and Man Booker Prize et al winners mostly, focusing on "important themes" and "powerful narratives" on identity, race and sexuality. They appreciate the subtext and substance of book, but rarely are concerned with style, structure or prose. They are educated and somewhat well off, yet, they identify as "the rest of us", when they speak of the comforts of people living in central London, when they themselves lodge in Camden.
It's a part of Seriousness syndrome, which is pretty much equivalent for Middle Aged people to what being a political idealist-realist (I want Bernie as president, but our shit system won't allow it!) is to teen. Symptoms:
> Identification with upper middle class, respectable person values and culture to a man, regardless of original background. Tends to wear white-collar clothing at all times. Public policy discussions are filtered via a parochial, gated community lens.
> Valuing common sense over scientific consensus when there is a conflict. When pushed far enough VSP will eventually err on the side of science, but will hold a candle for pseudoscience as long as it has a veneer of respectability. (Not having expertise of any kind is a feature, not a defect, of VSP.)
> Loves the hell out of the balance fallacy and the misapplication of the horseshoe theory. They feel uncomfortable pointing out flaws concentrated in the right-wing or left-wing without pointing to an opposite example. "Both sides do it!"
> Are reluctant to identify their exact politics but if they do they usually identify themselves as something uncontroversial such as "moderately conservative," "traditionalist," or "radically centrist." Be wary when using this standard to judge politicians outside the American sphere of influence, though. David Cameron and Nick Clegg would fit in the exact mold, but they're not this stupid.
> Consistently taking the moderate positions of their time. Very rarely will an individual Very Serious Person have an opinion that is too far out of the mainstream. This also leads to VSP being reflexively dismissive of alternate political perspectives such as libertarianism and socialism, regardless of the truth value of individual claims.
> Overemphasizes civility and niceness in public discourse. The Tea Party movement and Donald Trump on the right, and the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements on the left, are looked down upon not because of their aims, but because their tactics are too "disruptive" and "mean."
> As long as the previous caveat is satisfied, a fondness for the style over substance fallacy when evaluating political positions. Bullshit wrapped in a folksy anecdote and a G-rated zinger is more worthy of praise than the sober counter-point.
Many (but not all) are overtly optimistic about the nature of politics, to the point of idealism. Oh, one party is willingly prepared to hijack the world economy because a law they don't like got passed? Oh, stop complaining and compromise like a Clinton. It's all good.
>>7749989
> They are classics for a reason.
That's a very assumptive statement. Have you studied the background of the idea of classics, their history? Why books become classics is quite complex. Watt, by Beckett, is a masterpiece, yet not a classic. Why? I implore one to seek answer to this, and the connection between literary art and the mechanism of publishing industry critically.
>>7750113
> Bored by examining proxy causes or causal chains with more than two links. Loves the abuse of Occam's Razor.
> Hegemonic. The government, regardless of ideology, is given the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true of the U.S. military.
> Have an odd fascination/admiration of "Real America," usually meaning small towns in the Midwest and/or New England. (Rarely the South, due to its association with Christian fundamentalism and racism, or the Western US, due to its association with the militia movement and the lawless pop culture image of the "Wild West".) They are very protective of these areas from what they considered negative forms of elitism, such as Hollywood values and "liberal elites", though corporations that disturb traditional small city life (e.g. Wal-Mart) may also be met with hostility. Ironically, they themselves are usually city-dwellers and members of the elite; see the very first bullet point on this list.
> Hysterical of generalized criticisms of Christianity, heteronormativity, privilege, and Western history or foreign policy. Criticizing excesses is on the table as long as it's made out to be a unique event. Don't you dare suggest that Abu Ghraib was caused by a toxic culture of Islamophobia and authoritarianism in the military; it was just lone American-hating perverts! And everything's fine now! (This courtesy is not extended to subcultures at large; Muslims, gays, pacifism, female public figures, or French politics can be and are slammed without reciprocity being extended.)
But most importantly:
> Faces no punishment, ridicule, or loss of status for incorrect or mistaken opinions as long as the opinions were mainstream when made.
>>7750101
Underrated post desu
>>7750126
Nail on head
