/lit/ - Literature

I enjoy reading, will admit to not having read Joyce or Proust (yet), and dislike the vast majority of fantasy.

i can haz approvel?

I've never read Joyce or Proust, but I read plenty of other, non-fantasy, books.

You forgot:

People who make unwarranted generalizations: >0%

Fuck off and die.

>>1336369
non-reader.

It take me a while to finish a book, so I really can't understand how this board moves as fast as it does.

I'm off to grab a meal and read my book (pic) till dark. Work tomorrow.

Seize the day, Op. Whatever that means.

>>1336376
How am I a non-reader? I usually finish at least 2 books a week.

>>1336357
>implying /lit/ is made of

>Shitly fantasyfags. (92%)
I wish, maybe then we could have real discussions and not
>hurr kids books
>durr not literature
in every thread

as a Non-reader (the smallest minority), i demand equal treatment. there must be established a Non-reader Union Club that exists as a subset within /lit/. the members of our minority Union demand a constant sticky within which only we are allowed to post, as well as a stipend that comes from the pockets of other /lit/ members and duly allows us to partake in Non-reader activities.

Is there any reason to read Ulysses if you aren't going to understand or appreciate the myriad references to other works it's famous for containing?

I'd actually say that the majority of e/lit/ists dislike fantasy, sci-fi, and genre in general.

Halve the fantasyfag percentage and add science fiction fag to it as well. Then up the non-readers to about 30%.

>>1336402
I think there are a lot of us, it's just the people who don't like those genres see it as their goal to complain about them as much as possible. Why focus on the things you do like when you can disrupt other people, right?

>>1336402
Well the fact is there is a wide range of shitty fantasy and maybe several dozen out of the entire genre worth reading. Whereas with fiction/literature there is a lot more to pick from that is noteworthy. Yet there is much contemporary fiction that most e/lit/ists hate as well. I think it's just a matter of a diluted genre.

>>1336400
Without having read it myself, I'll leave you with the advice that it will fine to read it now. I remember liking Rocky and Bullwinkle when I was a kid and half their stuff was flying over my head at that age, then later I was able to enjoy it. I'm not sure what the Ulysses experience will be, but it can't be all bad.

>>1336400
The Oxford University Press edition is annotated, but not at a length to overburden your limited resources of attention. A concordex that covers every allusion is just too long, really.

I don't understand. If you're on /lit/ and don't read books, then wtf do you come here for?

>>1336597
they like the idea of being "readers".

like people who like the idea of "being a writer" but dont actually like writing.

THey just love the tweed and turtlenecks that are attached to it.

>>1336597
to troll
...like THIS!

>>1336597
THEY READ WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY ABOUT BOOKS AND THEN USE THAT TO REGURGITATE IT TO THEIR FRIENDS TO IMPRESS THEM WITHOUT EVER HAVING READ ANY BOOKS

>>1336626
this actually makes sense!

>>1336477
Meant to say "concordance".

>>1336357
I bought Joyce (Dubliners, Ulysses and Portrait of an Artists).

I've not read any

>>1336631
Shit, back in my day we use to have to fork out for the spark notes for this kind of pretention. With Wiki and /lit/ college hipsters these days have got it easy.