I am a litizen but I'm starting to see reading books as a faggot hobby. Is anyone else in this situation? The pretentiousness of /lit/, all while hypocritically sucking academia-media-publishing industrial complex cock, is astounding.
>Books R Art... but only if a famous publisher publishes it!
>Reading is noble.. but NEETs who read all day are loserz!
>Reading teaches you about the human condition... but don't imply that leaving the house can teach you that too, you'll expose my boring book as a scam that can't even pretend to be entertainment.
>Book quality is subjective... unless an academic says it's objective!
people have different opinions
>>8108872
well, OP, if you were reading to be cool but hate the cool kids, maybe you could hate yourself for who you are cool/uncool and leave books out of it. or did a book hurt you?
>I'm starting to see reading books as a faggot hobby
I'm falling headfirst for this b8 but whatever
>Books R Art... but only if a famous publisher publishes it!
This only ever comes up when we dismiss self-published books. It's not because we demand that books be published by a famous publisher, it's because self-published books suck 99% of the time. There's a correlation with a very obvious cause.
>Reading is noble.. but NEETs who read all day are loserz!
There's disagreement over this. But as Greek mythology should tell you, there's a safe middle way here. Besides, all the NEETs ive seen on this board never manage to read any more in a day than I do.
>Reading teaches you about the human condition... but don't imply that leaving the house can teach you that too, you'll expose my boring book as a scam that can't even pretend to be entertainment.
Never hears anyone here say that reading is about understanding the human condition. And if you're upset that /lit/ doesn't appreciate good things besides literature, you're a true moron.
>Book quality is subjective... unless an academic says it's objective!
If people on /lit/ were prepared to admit that quality is subjective, there would be no /lit/. Tey again, dipshit.
This is some real low quality bait
>>8108872
Most of /lit/ enjoys indie publishers, not necessarily famous ones. Dalkey Archive gets a lot of love.
>>8108944
I love you man
>>8108872
>academia-media-publishing industrial complex cock
They literally demand you don't read anything thats not James Joyce and don't read the translations of anything
>Books R Art... but only if a famous publisher publishes it!
Never heard this before
>but NEETs who read all day are loserz!
They are, and its not nobility faggot its just a preferred hobby and art form around here....on the literature forum....
>but don't imply that leaving the house can teach you that too
Most of the time it can't. Ever met a redneck before?
>unless an academic says it's objective
Literally no one has said that
Usually what people see as meaningful or "self-improving" is completely arbitrary and most people who are really keen to always be meaningful and self-improving really need some kind of authority to tell them just what and how and it often seems completely arbitrary.
For example if a person wants to be certifiably educated it isn't just enough for them to sit around and read things but you also need a school to reinforce, confirm that they actually understand through tests and grades, give them a clear idea of what is failure and success. Yet when a form of entertainment(video games) that actually does this, just what the school does people hate the very idea of it.
>>8108935
I definitely think quality is subjective, I just come here because it's entertaining and familiar, and because there's occasionally discussion that doesn't revolve around braindead shit-flinging.
>>8108872
Yes, /lit/ is garbage, but people read books for a long time before /lit/ existed. The lack of perspective and maturity among people who supposedly read a lot is astounding, I agree. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
