Is it justifiable?

Is it justifiable to read books for the story and to not look into deeper meanings of the book (where there are some)

I.E.

This girl asks me if I have read Fahrenheit 451, and I went on to tell (although this seems drawn out it was quite brief) her how I really enjoyed it and that it speaks a lot on censorship, anti-intellectualism, etc. Most of which is just generally what you can retain from the book if you have basic critical thinking skills.

She responded with, "Yeah it was a cool story, I like sci-fi."

Is it justifiable to read a story with an obvious deeper meaning just for the plot?

Or am I just an elitist prick? Probably.

>genre fiction

>>Other people are only allowed to enjoy a book the same way I do!

Yeah, tone it down there son.

the idea of 'looking into deeper meanings' as if literature is some kind of encrypted chinese cookie, is pleb as fuck.

>Is it justifiable to read a story with an obvious deeper meaning just for the plot?

justifiable, sure.

>Or am I just an elitist prick?

you're just a prick, don't get any ideas.

...

meh well the majority of classic stories have shitty, boring plots. you are literally supposed to read deeply into them to think about it.

>thinking that the main purpose of literature is to tell a story and not to convey a theme/overall lesson
how fucking juvenile

>assuming i was advocating reading for plot

life must be so simple when you only think in these shitty binaries.

>implying that you just didn't imply that reading books for meaning is for plebs

go back to tumblr, faggot

i didn't, but it's real cute you think that. come back when you finish high school.

a-user..

I think so. For me, I can never do that even if I try. Even if I'm reading the shittiest, shallowest waste of paper, I always look for hidden/deeper meanings. But I know some people either aren't capable of doing that or don't want to use so much brain power. I can respect that though.

Ok I admit it was shitty for me to assume my way was the best way to read a book, and of course people can read a book however they want.

>Farenheit 451

I never read a single book for the story.
I only read for style and symbols.

You're an elitist prick, but for Fahrenheit 451 however, I agree with you.

>symbols
thos are called letters, user~

If you need a justification for reading something (excluding reading for school/work) then you are already on the wrong path.

There's nothing wrong with reading a book just for the plot. If you're worried about having to justify the way you enjoy a book (or not), you're insecure.

Also you sound autistic OP.

It's only elitist of you if you're rude to/about her for it.

You want us to decrypt your post to find its true meaning? Write what you mean if you're so smart.

>reading books composed only of letters

>Is it justifiable to read books for the story and to not look into deeper meanings of the book

You're supposed to undesirable this things intuitively or at the very least retrospectively.

understand*

>thinking there are rules to reading
Read how you want.

>the majority of classic stories have shitty, boring plots

Whatever you say pleb

Was thinking just this, op is full of it