Is it justifiable to read books for the story and to not look into deeper meanings of the book (where there are some)
I.E.
This girl asks me if I have read Fahrenheit 451, and I went on to tell (although this seems drawn out it was quite brief) her how I really enjoyed it and that it speaks a lot on censorship, anti-intellectualism, etc. Most of which is just generally what you can retain from the book if you have basic critical thinking skills.
She responded with, "Yeah it was a cool story, I like sci-fi."
Is it justifiable to read a story with an obvious deeper meaning just for the plot?
Or am I just an elitist prick? Probably.
>>8211832
>genre fiction
>>Other people are only allowed to enjoy a book the same way I do!
Yeah, tone it down there son.
the idea of 'looking into deeper meanings' as if literature is some kind of encrypted chinese cookie, is pleb as fuck.
>Is it justifiable to read a story with an obvious deeper meaning just for the plot?
justifiable, sure.
>Or am I just an elitist prick?
you're just a prick, don't get any ideas.
>>8211855
meh well the majority of classic stories have shitty, boring plots. you are literally supposed to read deeply into them to think about it.
>thinking that the main purpose of literature is to tell a story and not to convey a theme/overall lesson
how fucking juvenile
>>8211895
>assuming i was advocating reading for plot
life must be so simple when you only think in these shitty binaries.
>>8211906
>implying that you just didn't imply that reading books for meaning is for plebs
go back to tumblr, faggot
>>8211916
i didn't, but it's real cute you think that. come back when you finish high school.
>>8211920
a-anon..
I think so. For me, I can never do that even if I try. Even if I'm reading the shittiest, shallowest waste of paper, I always look for hidden/deeper meanings. But I know some people either aren't capable of doing that or don't want to use so much brain power. I can respect that though.
Ok I admit it was shitty for me to assume my way was the best way to read a book, and of course people can read a book however they want.
>Farenheit 451
>>8211832
I never read a single book for the story.
I only read for style and symbols.
>>8211832
You're an elitist prick, but for Fahrenheit 451 however, I agree with you.
>>8211977
>symbols
thos are called letters, anon~
If you need a justification for reading something (excluding reading for school/work) then you are already on the wrong path.
There's nothing wrong with reading a book just for the plot. If you're worried about having to justify the way you enjoy a book (or not), you're insecure.
Also you sound autistic OP.
It's only elitist of you if you're rude to/about her for it.
>>8211920
You want us to decrypt your post to find its true meaning? Write what you mean if you're so smart.
>>8212037
>reading books composed only of letters
>>8211832
>Is it justifiable to read books for the story and to not look into deeper meanings of the book
You're supposed to undesirable this things intuitively or at the very least retrospectively.
>>8213054
understand*
>thinking there are rules to reading
Read how you want.
>>8211895
>the majority of classic stories have shitty, boring plots
Whatever you say pleb
>>8213074
Was thinking just this, op is full of it