Look at this fuckin traitor guys.
>pratchett
he can stay over there, and please.
Also I don't think /pol/ reads continental philosophy, I think they read the Daily Stormer and Elder Protocols of Zion, Turner Diaries, basically sister-fucking-pill books.
What a pleb lol
>>7655457
also why do people make the distinction between "reading for fun" and "reading"? If you find literature like Borges not-fun and Pratchett fun, you're a dilettante. Why would you even bother reading things you find "not fun"?
I guess that's why he likes Pratchett and asks /pol/ for books.
>>7655468
actually, in the thread, margaret atwood was suggested, as well as game of thrones. the pleb is strong on /pol/. no wonder Trump is losing.
>>7655475
To me reading is fun in the way that going to the gym is fun. Part of the enjoyment is the thought that it's good for me, but it also has an element of exertion that makes it feel good mentally/physically during the process in a more sensuous way.
>>7655468
Pratchett is fine.
--But treating him like a Godlike figure of literature is fucking stupid and treats him like more than he ever was or wanted to be.
>>7655457
>>/pol/62925913 Here
"Reading for fun" was misleading, I should have said "Guilty Pleasures", as in reading that has no real overt goal of high art or education, but just meant to be enjoyable in and of itself.
Migrant from the /pol/ thread here.
You guys know reading fiction doesn't make you intelligent or superior in any way right?
Looking down on someone's taste in literature is one of the most autistic things you can do.
It's all just for your own enjoyment.
>>7655468
>/pol/ doesn't read continental philosophy
>>7655492
>>7655507
True, it's not like exercising your brain makes it more effective, right? May as well spend your day arguing about the negro problem and two-party politics.
mfw i've started a /lit/ vs. /pol/ skirmish
>>7655517
This board is like a tumblr diaspora.
How is it even possible to be this retarded?
There is literally nothing sophisticated or intelligent about analyzing literature.
/pol/'s taste in art is pretty bad overall. I'd say its taste in literature is still leagues better than its taste in music, especially from the stereotypical /pol/ point of view.
t. /pol/ack
>>7655522
For a board that whines about culture you sure seem to be against the pursuit of analyzing culture.
>>7655522
>If I don't like it, it's Tumblr
>There is literally nothing sophisticated or intelligent about analyzing literature.
What *is* intelligent and sophisticated?
>>7655522
> There is literally nothing sophisticated or intelligent about analyzing literature.
> It's better to argue (ie. circlejerk) about semitic conspiracies and white superiority.
Shiggy Diggy
>>7655522
Only those who don't actually read literature have this opinion. Only those without developed and mature aesthetic and philosophical sensibilities could truly admire such vulgarians as Hitler and Trump.
>>7655522
/pol/ may always be right.
but now you're just shitposting.
>>7655535
Analyzing real things that impact your life and the world. Current events, international politics.
Things that are a bit over your head if you're a liberal arts major.
Stick with debating why the author made the protagonist's shoes red. That's a bit more your speed.
>>7655522
I'm sorry, but it requires intellect to study literature at length. In a world where modernity serves entertainment up on a silver platter, and shoves it into our eyesockets at every opportunity, sitting down and reading an 800 or so page novel is quite a feat, and one that deserves respect. You cannot, for example, say that the writers of the constitution were not literary scholars, and that without their prodigious understanding of philosophy and literature and culture, that they would still be able to craft such an enduring work of art as the Constitution. It's a plebby argument to bitch about people who look down on those who read simplistic dime store romances, when they are clearly not in the same league. It's comparing a Rembrandt with your 4 year old's drawing of a house. No one is going to claim that the child is more skilled than Rembrandt, and if they did, they would be considered idiotic. The same simple truth can be said of works of literature.
>>7655522
The most clear evidence that it does right here and now is that you're not intelligent enough to put the keywords "reading" and "intelligence" into Google and see the plethora of journalistic and scientific articles that show you to be definitively wrong.
>>7655545
>Analyzing real things that impact your life and the world. Current events, international politics.
What makes this more intelligent? They're both analysing, so how does the subject matter change its intelligence? --This is disregarding the fact that this is what the study of literature is.
>Things that are a bit over your head if you're a liberal arts major.
International politics is a liberal art.
>Stick with debating why the author made the protagonist's shoes red
Anon.
>>7655549
For someone who prides themselves on their reading ability, you clearly didn't comprehend my post well.
I didn't say anywhere that reading is somehow bad. I'm just saying that literature is nowhere near as elitist as you guys think it is.
Also, there's a correlation between reading and intelligence because you get intelligence from reading nonfiction. More at 11.
>>7655561
>thinking non-fiction isn't literature
okay, pleb.
>>7655522
This is some prime time bait. These anons are real dummys! Very sad!
>>7655561
>I'm just saying that literature is nowhere near as elitist as you guys think it is.
You have no idea how elitist any of us thinks it is, that is a totally meaningless statement for you to make
>there's a correlation between reading and intelligence because you get intelligence from reading nonfiction.
I'm sure nonfiction isn't bad for you or even merely neutral, but if you bothered to read the nonfiction studies I alluded to, you'll see they're chiefly about the benefits of fiction.
>>7655569
You need to get off your high horse.
You aren't a special snowflake because you read.
The mere act of reading doesn't raise your IQ, no matter what pseudo scientific "study" you read.
12 year old girls read.
80 year old cat ladies read.
Dudebros read.
These people aren't unique and neither are you.
>>7655571
>You need to get off your high horse.
You need to get off yours.
>You aren't a special snowflake because you read.
You aren't a special snowflake because you think you aren't a special snowflake because you read.
>The mere act of reading doesn't raise your IQ, no matter what pseudo scientific "study" you read.
You mean it doesn't raise your intelligence. IQ can be raised a number of ways.
>>7655571
Bygmester Finnegan, of the Stuttering Hand, freemen’s maurer, lived in the broadest way immarginable in his rushlit toofarback for messuages before joshuan judges had given us numbers or Helviticus committed deuteronomy (one yeastyday he sternely stuck his tete in a tub for to watsch the futures of his fates but ere he swiftly stook it out again, by the might of Moses, the very water was eviperated and all the guenneses had met their exodus so that ought to show you what a pentschanjeuchy chap he was!) and during mighty odd years this man of hod, cement and edifices in Toper’s Thorp piled buildung supra buildung pon the banks for the livers by the Soangso. He addle liddle phifie Annie ugged the little craythur. Wither hayre in honds tuck up your partinher. Oftwhile balbulous, mithre ahead, with goodly trowel in grasp and ivoroiled overalls which he habitacularly fondseed, like Haroun Childeric Eggeberth, he would caligulate by multiplicables the alltitude and malltitude until he seesaw by neatlight of the liquor wheretwin ’twas born his roundhead staple of other days to rise in undress maisonry upstanded (joygrantit!), a waalworth of a skyerscape of most eyeful hoyth entowerly, erigenating from next to nothing and celescalating the himals and all, hierarchitectitiptitoploftical, with a burning bush abob off its baubletop and with larrons o’toolers clittering up and tombles a’buckets clottering down.
analyze this for me, would you? I imagine a 12 year old girl could do it.
>>7655468
>sister-fucking-pill books
I feel like there might be an interesting story behind this term that I've missed out on.
>>7655571
You're really flailing to make your point now. I guess this is what years of reading "non" fiction on pol does to one.
>>7655600
>does to one.
You are not helping our case.
>>7655597
Redneck survivalist-tier literature.
>>7655457
>tfw first comment in his thread
Feels good, man. Why did you have to tell on him though?
>>7655522
>people falling for this bait
>>7655457
The only good place for us to escape is /fit/. If you go to either tv or mu yall become unfit neckbeards. Lit/his/fit masterrace. Also naturally, lgbt. God bless. Bye
>>7655577
Nice trips and dubs. Tough guy. You think you're so smart now? Guess what? Your trips and/or dont decide if you are smart or not. Maybe you are, maybe not but all Im saying that isnt deciding factor.
>>7655487
Well put. Couldn't agree more. I will happily trudge through a "boring" book, because I know it will be worth it in the end.
>>7655522
>there's nothing intellectual about being an intellectual
>>7655664
>/his/ and /lgbt/
cancer detected.
>>7655664
/trv/ you academic weirdo, forget /fit/ and /his/
Go finger a hungarian girl in the ass and get back to me on "masterrace"
>>7655547
Heh. Calm down, kid. We were all just jokin' around.
>>7655738
Im not weirdo. I just go to lit because it rhymes with fit. And I go to his because it rhymes with all the things Ill...I dont know, pure bliss? You shouldnt have provoke me
>>7655457
Let's link the thread.
>>>>/pol/62925913
>>7655681
Except immediate, visceral books that are a treat can also be great.
>>7655475
Being a dilettante is more about the context of your reading than the content. Even if you only read authors like Joyce, Borges, Tolstoy, etc. you're still a dilettante if you're a NEET doing it out of your mom's basement.
That being said, fuck Pratchett.
