I understand this might be a difficult or even bizarre question, but how does one go about enjoying literature?
Another way of asking this is: have you always enjoyed reading, and has the enjoyment always come first, or did you have to learn in some sense how to enjoy literature?
Finally, could you recommend some passages you found/find particularly rousing, and describe what/how they make you feel?
For some personal context, I have recently begun reading non-fiction voraciously (I am young and have recently found that I am interested in learning about history and biographies), and believe that my speed, endurance and comprehension are at the point where they do not negatively affect my enjoyment at all.
And yet, when I try to branch this budding interest in the written word into more artistic readings, I find that the norm is bored apathy with the occasional chuckle on particularly humorous passages.
>>7527387
Any thoughts are appreciated, I'll probably repost this tonight since this is apparently a slow board at a slow time of day.
>>7527387
i would "fuck" her if you know what i mean
>but how does one go about enjoying literature?
do you not realize how retarded that question is?
>but how does one go about enjoying opiates?
>but how does one go about enjoying ice cream?
>but how does one go about enjoying buttplugs?
there's no process to enjoyment. you just do or don't.
>>7527406
Is this New Sincerity?
>>7527387
I wanna kiss that girl so hard
>>7527389
This thread will still be here tonight even if no-one replies after me.
Read
The Long Ships (pic related)
If you don't find a hilarious romp through the country side with murder, rape, abduction, and times where good stories were told amusing then I don't know what to do.
>>7527412
Definitely disagree with this. You can definitely learn to enjoy things by approaching them from a different angle.
Try different doses of opiates, different flavours of ice cream and different sizes and shapes of buttplugs.
>>7527387
If you're new to literature and searching for beauty no novel is more perfect for you that Lolita.
Read the first passage and you won't have to ask this question again.
>>7527387
You say you have no lack of focus, so that's not it. Must be the reading material.
>have you always enjoyed-
/lit/ enjoys shitposting more than it enjoys reading.
>could you recommend some passages
Ripped out of context? This seems like a bad idea. I enjoyed the ending to Catch-22 but you'd need to read the entire thing to see why. Other passages that stick with me tend to do so because they made me realize something, not because they were exceptionally beautiful. So now I'm reading non-fiction again.
Listen, to understand the really hard stuff would basically require training, or some time spent sifting through cambridge companions. No shame in it if you're not jizzing your pants on every page of the meme trilogy because you probably just don't know what the fuck is going on and don't know the theory behind it yet.
>>7527387
You aren't supposed to enjoy literary fiction. Reading and appreciating the merits of a piece of literary fiction should be hard work.
>>7527986
Only if you're a prole. If you're really patrician Finnegans Wake will give you an erection that lasts longer than 4 hours.
>>7528004
You're not reading hard enough.
>>7527986
this
but it's for the few who devote their life to studying language and literature.
Casual readers are doomed to look for fun in reading not realizing that literature is just for analyzing, not enjoyment
>>7528019
>implying books like one hundred years of solitude aren't fun
gotta find what you like, op.
>>7528019
If you're not reading literary fiction for pleasure then you're a faggot striver poor who will never be patrician. Reading purely for analysis is for women's studies majors and autists.
The object of literature is pleasure. I'm sorry that your pathetic aesthetic palette is not refined enough to enjoy great works.
>>7528064
I'd rather entertain my autism with finding obscure references than read that dank new Stevie King
>>7528074
You're not getting the point. If you're the kind of person who would find enjoyment in Stephen King, then you are not /lit/ material in the first place. Stephen King's books are not enjoyable if you have any semblance of taste.
Basically you're admitting that you're a tasteless moron who secretly wants to read prolefeed, but you've relegated yourself to reference-hunting the classics to spare yourself the embarassment. If you actually had taste, Blood Meridian would make you cum buckets.
>>7527962
That's not really a "different angle." That's just trying different examples of that particular thing. It's not a learning process. You simply pick up a different book every day until you find one (or two or ten) that you like. Rinse and repeat.
>>7527387
You wanna be into literature but don't like reading. Stop being a hyperactive spaz and strengthen your minds eye. That or continue being a nobody the rest of your life.
>>7527638
Obviously not. It's a subversion of a subversion
>>7528019
No, literature is not "for the few who devote their life to studying." Literature is not for "analyzing." That is a stupidly-elitist view. Not only that, but it's the view of someone who doesn't derive pleasure from literature, but rather, only the analysis of literature--someone who sneers at those who possess the faculty he does not.
I can't say what literature is "for," since it has so many ends, but to say it's "for" one thing only is ridiculous and narrow-minded, no matter how much you believe everyone who disagrees with you is a Stephen King-reading pleb.
>>7527387
it usually takes me about 30-40 pages in before the feeling of pleasure from reading kicks in, maybe it's the same with you.
The only two books which hooked me up right off the bat was Candide and First Love
