Honest srs questions from a guy who has read many patrician books.
Why should I judge books on anything other than entertainment? Bear in mind that I'm a proud Stirnerite.
Why is it that "literary value" or whatever seems so much like marketing pushed by the academia-publishing-media industrial complex?
Why should I take the social critique / philosophy / "insights" of fiction books seriously AT ALL when the authors only present it in a vague and half assed way? It seems like dilletante pseudo intellectual posturing to me. Nabokov would agree. Dostoevsky obviously couldn't hack it on a wet and windy Thursday night in any worthwhile Psychology department.
Why, in the age of the internet, should I only take books seriously if they have the stamp of a publisher with a large enough revenue?
Why should I instantly dismiss all new artforms as not even being art? Why should I instantly dismiss new artforms as not being art due to them taking advantage of philosophy?
When "high brow" authors say they like "low brow" stuff is that them admitting that they don't even have the willpower to stay within their bubble of ascetic snobbery? We all know the bubble is made of bullshit but they don't even pretend that it's not these days.
Do you think that books have been a failure in terms of comedy?
You can know about a spook, and thus be freed from it, while still using it for whatever reason you want.
In this case you know the idea of a Western Art Canon is a spook, and judging things through it would be spooky, but you can choose to do so anyways, placing certain works higher than others because they stretch the boundaries of that spook.
>>7873591
>this entire post
This is why we need religion.
Literary value is just a particular flavour of fun that certain people like for various reasons, one of them being that it's a more challenging flavour of fun and another one being that it is a more prestigious form of fun, prestige being something enjoyable in its own right.
It's a certain frame that you can opt into if it makes things more enjoyable for you, elitism can be very rewarding for the ego. If it's something that you consider an obstacle you should simple not buy into it.
What matters is if elitism works for you. Ultimately it's all just muh feelsies.
Sounds like you are too stupid to enjoy real literature.
Literature isn't supposed to be boring or tedious.
You should not allow your enjoyment of anything to be dictated by anyone other yourself
>>7873591
>Bear in mind that I'm a proud Stirnerite.
ur a proud fukken wanker is what u r m8
>Why should I instantly dismiss all new artforms as not even being art? Why should I instantly dismiss new artforms as not being art due to them taking advantage of philosophy?
OP here. The final word should've been technology, not philosophy
>>7873591
>Bear in mind that I'm a proud Stirnerite.
You could have just made a topic saying "I'm a fucking retard" and ended it there.
there's something you should have noticed about 4chan by now... especially on boards devoted to interests like literature and music...
the posters here, mostly insecure young men, are motivated by a profound and burning need to distinguish themselves, to be better than others at any cost. their obsession with comparing, with ranking, with refinement is all rooted in a very philistine terror of mediocrity, or worse, actual triviality.
that's why they force themselves to read books that bore them to tears, books they will forget within hours after finishing them. they are apes whose only genuine interests are sex, security, and their reputations.
>>7875152
>should've been technology
>should
that's philosophy
>>7875169
>people I don't even know pretend to enjoy what they like
What a predictable, typical 4chan post
Read what you find entertaining. Reading is fun and it's a nice hobby.
>>7873591
Because books are supposed to make you think
