/lit/ - Literature

i need physical copies of some good books because i hate reading pdfs but i dont know whats worth spending my money on. preferably written between like 1700-2000 and no commie nigger or tranny reccomendations thanks.

Why does Gen Z hate classic literature?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RecmsN8XU0E

>Read book.
>Oh good book. Loved it. Good job, book.
>Literally hears the next day movie getting made.
>Hmm. Looks actually really good. Kinda got a little misty from 30 second trailer.
>Get randomly invited to screening of it next week.
>The Author is going to be there.
>That's pretty awesome.
>Still has book from library.
>Was going to give it back tomorrow.
>Go to book store to buy my own copy to get signed.
>Bookstore does not have the library copy- hardcover without that stupid obnoxious "SOON TO BE A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE" sticker ON the cover. Not a sticker.
>Can't order hardcover without that design. It's out of print.
>Need the book like tomorrow
>Can't trust amazon or ebay to get me copy by tomorrow.
>Looks at Library copy
>What if I just keep the library copy and give them the 15$ bucks for it
>Say sorry, lost the book. Here's your money.
>Pay for book. Get copy I want. Get it signed. Have fun story to tell about it later.
>Morally good or bad?

How much of your time do you engage in reading books? And how many books do you read in a year?

Also: any advice for someone who wants to be a more 'disciplined' reader?

What texts should be ABSOLUTE mandatory reading before leaving public schooling?

My list:

The Epic of Gilgamesh
The Iliad
The Odyssey
The Republic
The Bible (KJV)
The Divine Comedy
Hamlet
Romeo and Juliet
Paradise Lost

Is there any real reason to read the "classics" over more mainstream and "lower quality" books?
I've always loved reading. I typically read a few books a week, not for bragging rights, but because I derive pleasure from it. Those books however, typically have "low literary value", and are simply books whose subject I enjoy. (Fantasy, sci-fi, religion, self help). Is their any significant reason to force myself to read books that don't immediately catch my eye, simply because they are considered to be important?
Sorry if I didn't explain this topic properly, not sure how to articulate my question.

Forgive this poorly informed post, I study a field seemingly distant from this stuff.

What separates "Classics" (1984, Brave new world, etc) from ordinary books, and possibly subset to ordinary books popular books like harry potter and twilight?

Are these divisions real or just imagined by myself?

How do these imagined or real divisions relate to idea of artistic merit?

My impression is that the Classics all have some form of important, universal theme to them, or they capture a significant time period and what made that time period significant (what's with all the books about blacks and slavery?).

Where nonclassic literature is quite good at immersing the reader or providing aesthetic quality in the sense of easy reading (people like it), it does not contain important ideas. It essentially is good at pandering to what makes the readers feel enjoyment.


Thanks

So I'm your everyday reader and I read Dracula about a year ago and now I was going to read it again but I got another copy of it and it's totally different. The first one was simplified for today’s readers but it only said it in a little note in the back of the book.

How can they do this? It don't feel like I have even read Dracula now. I'm not even sure if the one I have now is the real one. I can sort of understand why they do it but shouldn't they make it clear when you buy a book that it's re-written?

How can I avoid this in the future? Are there any good publishers that don't change classic literature? Tips, favorites and advice please.

Why is classic literature so boring?