/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3202374]

We each list one book that we believe a person has to read in order to call themslves well read.

The Brothers Karamazov

[Anonymous No.3202381]

The idea that some classics are inherently valuable is a joke. Everybody should read following their own interests not some arbitrary canonical list.

[Anonymous No.3202394]

>>3202381
So a person whose interests pertain only to teen fiction novels such as Twilight can call themselves the equal of someone who reads Dostoevsky or Hemingway?

[Anonymous No.3202405]

>>3202374
>>3202394
A person who only reads fiction should not be considered well read.

You should have read the classics, and I mean the real classics; Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Seneca, Plutarch, Virgil, etc. And know latin and greek.

Otherwise you're a pleb.

[Anonymous No.3202404]

>>3202394
I would say read both Twilight and Dostoevsky so that you can compare both of them.
Someone who says Twilight is their favorite book shows how much they are well read.

[Anonymous No.3202407]

>>3202394
Im sure there have been master thesis and books on twilight so uesyes

[Anonymous No.3202411]

>>3202394

*Hernrningway

[Anonymous No.3202412]

>>3202405
>And know latin and greek.
Why the fuck for? Given that one has already read the people you listed, be it in another language?

[Anonymous No.3202414]

>>3202412
>otherwise you're a pleb

[Anonymous No.3202415]

>>3202404

I agree.

>>3202405

I was using Dostoevsky and Hemingway as examples. Obviously I agree with you. Except for the knowing Latin and Greek part. There's plenty of decent translations out there.

>>3202407

Just because someone studies Twilight doesn't change the fact that it's garbage.

[Anonymous No.3202421]

>>3202394
The opposite is not necessarily true, either.

[Anonymous No.3202423]

>>3202414
Yes yes, I was asking why I would be a pleb

[Anonymous No.3202430]

>>3202421
The names were just an example. Let me clarify: Could someone whose reading is exclusive to teen fiction call themselves as well read as someone who reads classic literature and philosophy?

[Anonymous No.3202435]

>>3202423
For not knowing latin.

[Anonymous No.3202441]

>>3202430
No. Teen fiction lacks any real meaning or purpose beyond entertainment.

[Anonymous No.3202442]

>>3202435
Why should I know Latin?

[Anonymous No.3202444]

>>3202404
>Someone who says Twilight is their favorite book shows how much they are well read.

Only if you tacitly accept the idea of canon, you fool.

[Anonymous No.3202446]

>I dont have to read the book when there's countless movies out there, oh look, a 2012 movie is about to come out.

10/10 rage.

[Anonymous No.3202447]

>>3202442
Because otherwise you're a pleb

[Anonymous No.3202455]

>>3202430
Rather I'm emphasizing that being "well read" is not very meaningful in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.3202456]

>>3202447
Why would not knowing Latin make me a pleb?

[Anonymous No.3202460]

>>3202456
Because you don't know latin.

[Anonymous No.3202471]

>>3202460
But I know Latin

[Anonymous No.3202482]

>>3202430
I would say no.
For both sides.
As i said before, well read means that you experience all level of quality.
Both cheap teen fiction and the classics, so that you can compare both.
From time to time, i like to read a John Grisham even if i get disappointed by the end.
Reading classics and philosophy makes you reach for the best quality humanity can offer but it is always good to look down and compare it to others that are not classics and seek those that might be considered classics in the future.
If you stick yourself in the past while reading only classics, you will ignore the present classic that may or may not be good.
However if a person only reads exclusively teen fiction, they limit themselves into one group.
So, all in all, it depends on what you are exclusively reading. Read from the top and go lower into shit is my moto.

[Anonymous No.3202484]

>>3202446
Worst is that the movie is coming out soon and i haven't read the book to compare the movie and the book.
And people who consider you well read as for your opinion on it and you can't answer.

[Anonymous No.3202505]

>>3202484
Well the movie is based on THE MUSICAL, which is based off the novel, so there are similarities between the two, but things are added and a lot is missing.

For example, that "I dreamed a dream" song (which got Susan Boyle famous) is from the musical, but no where in the novel is there singing from main characters.

[Anonymous No.3202509]

>>3202484
start now! 100 pages a day and you'll be done in two weeks

[Anonymous No.3202523]

>>3202509
Trust me, im trying my best.
Problem is that im not limited to only books.
I'm stuck watching movies, finishing tv shows, anime, manga, games etc.
It just never ends and people keep asking your opinion on it random subject left and right.
Its fun in discussion but i get exhausted by my backlog.

[Anonymous No.3202526]

>>3202509
>>3202505
I loved the novel, except the first chapter of Cosette when it deals entirely of the Battle of Waterloo. That chapter deals nothing with the novel except for the last few paragraphs, when the innkeeper is mentioned. Seriously, why was that added?!

[Anonymous No.3202541]

>>3202523
I know that feeling. I just don't sleep much anymore

(and also, being on 4chan isn't very conducive to working on your backlog)

[Anonymous No.3202543]

>>3202541
(so we're both guilty in that respect)

[Anonymous No.3202560]

>>3202526
>Seriously, why was that added?!

3deep6u

[Anonymous No.3202561]

>>3202526
I love that chapter.
I also hate that they took out Marius' entire family. His grandfather and father sections are some of my favorites in the book.

[Anonymous No.3202586]

Faust

[Anonymous No.3202598]

>>3202560
No, I just don't care about pointless war history in a novel that has nothing to do with it. It's like reading The Brothers Karamazov and there's a ton of pages dedicated to the history of a table fan, only to find out that Agrafena thought something about it in the last pages.

[Franz !!8ZELb56UWUx No.3202620]

Holy Bible (KJV)

[Anonymous No.3202626]

By far the worst thread on 4chan I've encountered yet, and I browse /mu/, /tv/ and /soc/.

[Anonymous No.3202632]

[Anonymous No.3202657]

>>3202632
mah nigga

[Anonymous No.3202658]

>>3202626
thanks for contributing.

[Anonymous No.3202706]

>>3202526
It was added because Hugo can't fucking control himself. Did he even have an editor?

[Anonymous No.3202856]

The friggin Sandman comics, just because nobody will ever mention them.

[Anonymous No.3202868]

>>3202706
When you're Voice of a Nation, you don't "need" editors.

[Anonymous No.3202887]

>>3202706

Think again. Consider the contrast between Cambronne and Thenardier in the Waterloo section, and maybe re-read the section with an eye to Hugo's insistence that Napoleon wasn't beaten by Wellington or Blucher, but by God.

It ties into the rest of the novel rather nicely in that context.

[Anonymous No.3202930]

I am not well read at all but I have read the Brothers Karamazov. I think certain works can be good indicators but one single work can not define how well read they are.

[Anonymous No.3202950]

>>3202405
>not mentioning Homer by name

[Bullkowski !!DDFKjfJhPl/ No.3202954]

Being well read is a fucking illusion. According to Wikipedia, the USA alone in 2010 printed 328,259 new books and editions. Just the USA and just that year. If you read a book a day, its well over 850 years apparently for you to be able to just read that years new printings and editions for the USA.

[Anonymous No.3202952]

>>3202471
then you're a pleb for knowing an archaic language

go learn japanese for superior japanese literature senpai

[Anonymous No.3202957]

>>3202471
Then you're not a pleb.

[Anonymous No.3202989]

>>3202930
Well read also means being able to appreciate and examine a novel for it's worth. Any idiot can read, but to be well read means you read well and often.

[Anonymous No.3203052]

I think how well read you are depends on your chosen area of literature eg someone who was really into Japanese literature would have to have read some Mishima to be considered well read, but someone who was into 19th century French literature wouldn't. I don't know if that makes any sense.

[Anonymous No.3203119]

War and Peace

[Anonymous No.3204429]

1984.

[Anonymous No.3204435]

Anthem.

Ayn Rand, bitches.

[Anonymous No.3204444]

>>3204429
Really?
I though it was a bore and i can't stop seeing people putting it as their top book to seem well read.

[Anonymous No.3204455]

>>3204444

It's a pretty big deal really

gotta be really stupid not to see why/to see it as a bore

[Anonymous No.3204469]

>>3204455
>It's a pretty big deal really

[sage No.3204476]

>>3204444

What you are trying to do is be different by questioning what others think to be good.

What you must learn to do is be different by the conclusions you draw from your questioning.

You're close, but you're not doing it quite right.

[Anonymous No.3204507]

It's never one book. One book would only give you one perspective

>>3204429
Why do people even mention this book .. ever?

[Anonymous No.3204511]

>>3204476
1. You dont know how to sage ...
2. It's pleb lit and didn't really offer any new ideas or interesting writing

[Anonymous No.3204516]

>>3204469

you're right; it's actually a huge fucking deal

[Anonymous No.3204514]

>>3204507
>Why do people even mention this book .. ever?
because their high school english class was like, totally enlightening. man.

[Anonymous No.3204518]

1984 has no relevance at all, it's just dystopian fanfic jerk-off shit. Brave New World isn't a ~masterpiece~ or anything but much more pertinent to reality

[Anonymous No.3204521]

>>3204516

[Anonymous No.3204527]

>>3204518
>Brave New World isn't a ~masterpiece~ or anything but much more pertinent to reality
bingo

[Anonymous No.3204528]

>>3204518

>fanfic jerk-off shit

That's true, the part where Sonic resolves to dismantle Big Brother and proposes to Amy is wicked though

>>3204507

It's well-written, evocative, relevant... think about it, read it, read about it

[Anonymous No.3204547]

>>3204528
>It's well-written, evocative, relevant... think about it, read it, read about it
no, no, and no. it is not any of those things. It's high school level and isn't profound in any way

[Anonymous No.3204561]

[Anonymous No.3204574]

>>3202505
Sorry I had to read at you mentioning that there wasn't any singing in the book. Of course there isn't, it's a novel. The other is a musical and so by definition there must be singing.

Regardless, in some ways I'm glad about changes in characters, characters like Eponine I'd like to see more like the novel but they saw potential to give her songs so she had to be a brighter and prettier girl. Gavroche goddamn I wish he had more stage time. Also Enjolras deserved his own death scene in the musical,... that part with him and Grantaire at the end, all my manly tears were shed.

[Anonymous No.3204569]

The Bible. Anything else a 'well-read' person reads will be going largely over their head if they haven't read the Old and the New Testament.

[Anonymous No.3204571]

>>3204547
I would agree that it isn't profound but its still competently written.

[Anonymous No.3204582]

>>3204528

yeah as a story I like it, the ending is moving, yadda yadda. It's a 'fun' read but not an 'important' one.

[Anonymous No.3204590]

>>3204574
>read at = respond to

WTF me.

[Anonymous No.3204591]

>>3204571
Read more than one book, then come back here with what is "competently written"

[Anonymous No.3204594]

>>3204569
And the sweeping overstatement of the year award goes to...

[Anonymous No.3204606]

>>3204569
Agreed, nkj and catholic standard are pretty great
>>3204594
I used to think like this about religious works till I actually sat down with them. Theres a reason why people still talk about them

[Anonymous No.3204608]

>>3204594
>implying biblical themes aren't rampant in western literature

[Anonymous No.3204617]

>>3202374
if one is to call themselves by the name "well read". monsieur, one must only read well. as to the choice of books, that is up to you. i trust you will only read goethe and shakespeare!!!!

[the only living jedi in new york No.3204657]

>>3204594

The Bible is unquestionably the most influential book in the history of Western literature.

[Anonymous No.3204659]

>>3204476
>be different by questioning what others think to be good
Um, no.
I genuinely did not like it completely.
At parts it was clever and well written.
The city itself and where the everyone lived really showed how shitty everything was.
The propaganda, the evasion etc. All that atmosphere is amazing and well showed.
But when it gets to the characters, Winston and that woman, and the world at large, it just falls flat.
The characters have good reasons due to their past to not fall into the sheep population but nothing interesting happens to them and when Orwell tries to explain what the fuck is going on with the whole world, the book just goes haywire.
Same thing happens with Fahrenheit 451.
Interesting city and situation but it fucks up at trying to give a semi plausible explanation to what the world is doing.
Fahrenheit makes an even worst case because they destroy the books so that people are happy yet the whole world is at war?
Huge damn contradiction there. If the world was all peaceful there might be a good case for burning the book but if there is already chaos, why would burning books help in any way?
I think my issue with classic sci fi is that the world is interesting but the characters and causality of the world just goes nowhere and any attempt by the author to give it a casual explanation is horribly done.

[Anonymous No.3204665]

>>3204608
>implying...
Well, fuck it, I can't rephrase the original post sarcastically. It's too blunt in its stupidity. I'll just repost it.
>Anything else a 'well-read' person reads will be going largely over their head if they haven't read the Old and the New Testament.

[Anonymous No.3204677]

>>3204665
you've clearly not studied literature seriously and in an advanced academic setting. or you slept through your courses.

you've also clearly not read the bible academically or you wouldn't be spouting such edgy-teenager nonsense

[Anonymous No.3204684]

>>3204677
Pic related is not the bible. Does it largely go over your head if you have not read the bible?

[Anonymous No.3204698]

>>3204684
what exactly is the point you're trying to make? speak more directly

[Anonymous No.3204703]

>>3204698
I don't think I can explain myself more clearly than I already have. Try answering the question and thinking about the logical implications.

[Anonymous No.3204711]

>>3204684
>let me think of 14 lines of poetry to disprove the literary influence of the bible
>I'll just ignore the importance of Greek and Roman mythology to said sonnet while I'm at it

[Anonymous No.3204716]

>>3204711
Try answering the question and thinking about the logical implications for your original statement.

[Anonymous No.3204747]

>>3204716
you're trying to deliberately nitpick over the semantics of a generalization with regards to the relative literary importance of the bible based on a single sonnet. in doing so you're conveniently scuppering the GrecoRoman myths of which the sonnet was borne.

It's like you're fighting against the idea that one fantastical set of myths has relevance by saying 'this other set of myths also has relevance!!' all you're doing is proving my point that literature would not exist as it has for centuries without the foundation of myths. you can quibble over whether they're Judeo-Christian myths or Greco-Roman myths all you want, but the point stands, and so too does the point that as a literary work of significance the only works comparable to the Bible are, coincidentally, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, and Ovid's Metamorphoses

[Anonymous No.3204805]

>>3204747
>you're
I have been (Past tense)
>trying
Succeeding (Past tense)
>deliberately
(Redundant.)
>to nitpick over
In calling you out on
>the semantics of generalization
Your sweeping generalization
>with regards to the relative literary importance of the bible
About the necessity of the bible in understanding any and all non-biblical literature.

Was that sentence some kind of life's work that's you're deeply attached to and unwilling to find fault in? Why so defensive?

[Anonymous No.3204825]

>>3204805
was that response some kind of life's work whereby you continue to quibble over semantics rather than address the fact that myth precedes all literature, and that we would have nothing without the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman mythologies? why so reluctant to address the essence of my point?

you accidentally an apostrophe-s, while we're quibbling.

[Anonymous No.3204868]

>>3204825
You made an error in logic. That is the subject of the argument. You were proven wrong a few posts ago. Goodnight. Feel free to reply to this if you feel like it'll win you some kind of race to the last word.

[Anonymous No.3204888]

>>3204868
>can't analyze critically from a historical perspective
>better attack semantics

[Anonymous No.3205062]

"Well read" is some bullshit way to put yourself on top of other people much like a hipster would say you're not "well dressed" because you don't walk around with a fedora. It means nothing. Besides, just because you come to me saying that you read Zarathustra doesn't mean I'm going to put you on a pedestal of respect because there's a huge difference between reading it and getting it.

History books, math books, philosophy books, medical books, fantasy books, it doesn't matter, the only words you'll ever hear me say about someone who read those and showed me they actually got it is "that guy knows his shit". Because knowing your shit is what actually matters, everything else is just you being a pseudo-intellectual.

[Anonymous No.3205074]

>>3204868
ah, bravo, monsieur! behold the staccato rhythms of the passive aggressive internet rebuttal!!! bravo!!! would you like to come out of your temple of anas, bow to these dicks, and return to that immeasurably tight, tight, tight grove?