>someone asks for a book recommendation because you're "that guy who reads"
>can only think of stuff that they probably won't be able to handle
Is there any way out of this pride?
By realizing you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are, and if you can read those books pretty much any asshole can too.
>>7779104
Pretentious much.
I always start by asking them what they like or have read and liked. If you can't think of something to lead them away from Harry Potter, you've got the problem.
>>7779115
Many possess the potential, few the will. Your're right though.
>>7779121
Exactly.
>>7779121
>Pretentious
>Useless tripfag
>>7779115
This. We all had to start somewhere, and I doubt you didn't start with basic shit just like anyone else. If you say you didn't, then chances are you're still at the basic shit.
I actually have one of my friends reading infinite jest right now.
My sides
You could lurk the scifi/fantasy general every once in a while just to stay abreast of names to toss around.
Also, most people haven't read many classics-- even so called pulp classics --so you could inject some Vonnegut or Kerouac to either your own reading list or your list of bullshit to give people.
>>7779104
Recommend pleb tier that you enjoy. I recommend Murakami, Palahniuk and Pratchett the most when people ask.
then you're a pleb cuz there's very many literary books that are friendly and readable
>>7779365
Yeah, but then they think you're a pleb just like them.
>>7779418
That's a good thing because you will have an easier time socialising with them.
Nobody cares about your great taste except for you and possibly your mom.
>>7779104
I got a friend of mine who doesn't read to hop straight into V. and Gravity's Rainbow by emphasizing the humor in them. He finished V. and is most of the way through Gravity's Rainbow so it worked.
>>7779104
Stephen King
>>7779418
Not if they're asking for recommendations they won't. Also, who gives a shit?
I told my friend to read GR a couple years ago. We're no longer friends and he hasn't read a book since
>>7779568
>>7779115
I agree that it's always important to keep in mind that you aren't as smart as you think you are, but I don't find
>and if you can read those books pretty much any asshole can too.
entirely true.
Most people can't pick up difficult books and understand them to the same degree that those who read seriously can. Now that isn't an excuse to go around thinking that you're hot shit, but "any asshole" simply can't do what you're inferring here.
>>7779674
Other anons already addressed the blanks by bringing up "they can with sufficient effort"
I just jumped to the chase to say anyone can do it...because they can. Of course we can bring in guys like the mentally retarded but idk if we're really trying to go there.
>>7779679
>"they can with sufficient effort"
I think this is a naively idealistic. There are some people who would never be able to understand really difficult works no matter the time put in. That doesn't mean that they're somehow lesser people, their strengths lie elsewhere, but this is a weird Marxist type view of the situation. Some people aren't intellectually gifted.
>>7779703
I can agree, I don't really consider myself an intellectual either, but if I want to read something I just read it.
>>7779194
>aunt butters
>useless
>>7779591
are 9gag memes the new hip memes? how many layers of irony is that?
>>7779715
>implying that's butters
>implying butters was a she
>>7779104
The way out is to not be 'that guy who reads.' If you read in public you'll have to deal with faggots asking 'watcha readin'' or 'what's that about?' Read alone if you want to dodge this. Admit that deep down you get off on this dilemma.
>Is there any way out of this pride?
Yes, by realizing that you have no taste. Most of the great classics are straightforward and easy to read. Anyone can read the Iliad or the Metamorphoses or Anna Karenina; if all the recommendations you can think of are obscurantist "2deep4u" modernist bullshit, that's probably because you're an edgy pseudo-intellectual.
>>7779719
>layers of irony
Are you from the 90s or something. Those concepts were dissolved by postirony.
>>7779115
This. I always recommend V or TCOL 49 and if they like it then they can read GR
>>7779104
I just recommend Solaris because it has 'psycho thriller' and 'love story' elements that normies love
>>7779809
hey i agree for the most part but why would liking classics mean you lack taste?
>>7779121
Did you ever dress up like a girl and let a bunch of boys fuck you?
>>7779814
You'd be surprised how many people jerk over classics just for the appearance of appearing "on the level".
>>7779819
for the sake of appearing*
>>7779819
There are also people who read 2 books/year so if you read so little why not read the best there is. It's the same retarded hipster mentality you get in /mu/. Average people with jobs and family don't have time to waste on searching obscure shit that might turn out good
>>7779115
>if you can read those books pretty much any asshole can too
I have reason to strongly disagree with this. Vastly more people simply have not developed the mental capacity to appreciate 'high literature' than you'd think, and through no fault of their own.
>>7779847
People have been reading those books for hundreds of years, lets not kid ourselves into thinking we're special for reading them.
Other anons have already mentioned that you can simply develop the skill, so it need not be repeated.
>>7779826
Taste is developed, not prescribed.
>>7779856
>People have been reading those books for hundreds of years
That doesn't mean shit. Much literature, even that written in prose, relies in a sense of subconscious musical imagination that many people simply have not developed in themselves, even at an advanced age. If this has not happened, they will get barely anything out of most classics and really are better off reading pop literature for the sake of their own pleasure.
>Other anons have already mentioned that you can simply develop the skill, so it need not be repeated.
I don't deny this at all, but I suspect you are vastly underestimating how difficult this is to develop, or how impenetrable something like Shakespeare is to the average person, and in such a way that even if they were to read or watch a performance a hundred times they still wouldn't get anything of value out of it. If the classics seem easy to you, then you likely cannot comprehend how difficult they actually are to the average pleb.
>>7779865
And this is why they're taught in schools and why humanities are a big deal.
You're removing the entire education and "building block" factor to make reading these books seem like some impassable barrier, when its really not. Again, people have been reading this shit for decades and centuries, we as a handful of 20-somethings are really just starting to wet our feet, taking steps many have already taken before.
Its also extremely common for people to move onto "literary" fiction after some time reading the standard genre stuff.
>>7779886
You seem to have a weird complex over affording any merit to those who choose to improve their reading abilities through hard work. Yes, people have been "reading this shit for centuries", does that somehow negate the work that a discerning reader puts in?
No anon here is trying very hard to lord over their fellow man in this thread. Most of the posters have been reasonable. We know that just because we are decent readers it doesn't necessarily make us any better people. But it is absolutely impenetrable to the average person, either because they aren't naturally adept when it comes to complex thought or they choose it to be impenetrable through indifference toward difficult literature in general. But the result is still the same: they don't grasp it. You are trying too hard to be politically correct here and you are moving away from basic common sense in the process.
>>7779933
The very basis of this thread was retarded elitism, if you've actually been reading it.
All I've ever been advocating is improving reading skills by simply reading and building up to larger books, but you want to insist that its "impossible" for average people to understand these advanced books and leave it at that. Again ignoring the basic progression from simple to advanced.
That aside, I haven't even seen one concrete example from you aside from that vague assertion, yet we have seen throughout this thread people speaking of how simple a matter it is to pick up a book and read it.
If anything, you're trying too hard to cling to this idea of being somehow special for reading books.
>>7779946
>If anything, you're trying too hard to cling to this idea of being somehow special for reading books.
Alright now I know you're just looking to soapbox over nothing like an idiot. I covered this specifically in the very post you replied to -
>>We know that just because we are decent readers it doesn't necessarily make us any better people.
Wow I guess I really am thinking I'm super "special" over here. Good job taking me to task for my rampant elitism.
>>7779951
Spotted the narcissist! I'm going to continue scrolling through the front page now, take care.
>>7779951
Its all in your assertion of "average people don't get it", I don't give a damn about your disclaimer.
Who are you even referring to with this idea? Are you going to develop on this or just endlessly repeat it? Be aware these language and comprehension skills you mentioned are literally developed in childhood through the average school curriculum, and only supplemented by a persons own interest in literature.
You might've done better in saying "average people have no interest", but putting this imaginary block on them is just unbelievably stupid, since we know that reading is just a skill that can be developed.
>>7779956
>Spotted the narcissist!
You're either baiting now or this might be the worst attempt at armchair psych that I've come across in a while. I literally made it a point to say that this skill doesn't necessarily make one better than another.
You take care, lol.
>>7779962
>but putting this imaginary block on them is just unbelievably stupid, since we know that reading is just a skill that can be developed.
By this logic you could say that any person can compete alongside athletes in their chosen field - they just haven't developed the skills to reach that competitive plateau yet.
Your whole position is built on a bedrock of "what if?", and it has no bearing in the real world.
You have this bizarre obsession to need to endow people with capacities that they themselves haven't personally attained. Either someone has worked for something and arrived at a certain skill level within it or they haven't.
I would make a dogshit athlete compared to people who put in continual work for it. This is common sense and it absolutely stands to reason. The world doesn't end by my admitting this. What are you so triggered over?
I'll just give em some entry level, short-ish novels like Vonnegut's and Murakami.
maybe something like Casares because it's short and people who aren't as into reading will be less inclined to become demotivated.
>>7779981
>By this logic you could say that any person can compete alongside athletes in their chosen field - they just haven't developed the skills to reach that competitive plateau yet.
Thats literally the case, you wont be able to compete in the Olympics because you aren't developed enough, but also, do you even have the will and interest to become so developed? If you don't have that interest then you're a car with no engine.
>You have this bizarre obsession to need to endow people with capacities that they themselves haven't personally attained.
lol you'll need to bring some hard evidence on that, since I'm damn sure I mentioned that there is a progression from basic to advanced.
>Either someone has worked for something and arrived at a certain skill level within it or they haven't.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? My very post in this thread pointed toward the /potential/ of people developing the necessary skills for advanced reading. They have the capability if they choose to use it, that's all. But then we have guys like you wagging your fingers saying "nuh uh no they cant do it,,, cuz they cant."
For all this talk of literacy you guys sure are fucking up tonight.
>>7779998
>Thats literally the case
No, it isn't. Are you serious? That's literally the case for ANY person? So I might as well go and find someone with a serious physical disability and tell them to buck up and work hard because if they do they have the potential to "compete in the Olympics" in the athletic field of their choosing. Your position is tumblresque nonsense.
Yes, people have certain degrees of latent potential, that is a given. But if they don't use that potential and work to get there then what the fuck are you wanting from anon? That we should give them a placeholder title in the event that they might one day start to seriously give a shit about it?
>But then we have guys like you wagging your fingers saying "nuh uh no they cant do it,,, cuz they cant."
No, my position is "they do it when they do it". Sorry that this basic truth has completely prolapsed you. Walk it off.
>>7780023
>No, my position is "they do it when they do it".
You could have saved much time by saying that in the first place, but we all know you're just moving around the goalposts. See your original post.
>Vastly more people simply have not developed the mental capacity to appreciate 'high literature' than you'd think, and through no fault of their own.
Even here you already indicate the potential can be developed, which is what I've been saying all along. You just seem really obsessed with placing yourself on a higher plane over reading a few books. Your overall point is really...pointless.
I'm not sure where these tumblrite accusations are coming from so I'm just going to assume you want to jab out of frustration. I said literally nothing about consolation prizes and placeholder titles. That's your own projection.
I already addressed people such as the mentally retarded who will most certainly not be capable of reading at the advanced level, but those are special cases, the argument here is "average people", remember?
>>7780038
>See your original post.
That wasn't my post. That was another anon.
My position is slightly different. Most people (outside of those with specific disabilities) have latent potential and can bridge that gap, but choose not to. Their choice, fair enough, but I'm not going to say that anyone has a skill set until they actually fucking have it, and it's political correctness run amok to suggest otherwise.
>>7780054
>Most people (outside of those with specific disabilities) have latent potential and can bridge that gap, but choose not to.
We agree then. Have a nice evening.
>>7780058
Night m8.
average people can't read Ulysses. i've already tested this. their normie minds get exploded while you watch them.
>>7780606
What chapter do you have them read?
ironically recommend them bad books as a way of subtly insulting, or "negging" them. just memorize a list of the top books on goodreads or something
>>7780606
well ofcourse they won't be able to grasp Ulysses, it requires a lot of pre-reading to get a lot of the references.
>>7779752
i mean yeah
>>7779809
I think he meant that most books he reads and finds interesting have no interest for someone who doesn't read. Malraux isn't difficult at all, neither is Jack London, but I've seen people who i recommended it too having difficulty getting through them.
>>7779811
dude post-irony is literally like by definition at least four layers of irony i mean c'mon jeez
