Literature confessions

Post your literature confessions.

>I don't enjoy reading the greeks
>I don't enjoy reading Joyce
>I prefer Roald Dahl over Carver

>didn't finish Long Road to Freedom
>played vidya instead

Haven't read a non-fiction book in years.

I'm browsing this shit site right now instead of enjoying a good book.

For me it's the opposite. The older I get the less interested in fiction I get. Now I seem to read purely non-fiction, history, philosophy and journalism books.

I spend probably four times as much time masturbating as I do reading
I'll masturbate for 5 hours/day usually

>I feel physical repulsion when someone says "taste is taste, there are no objectively good or bad books"
Art is not subjective. My taste is very likely better than yours.
>Reading fiction is still less useful than reading non-fiction
That said, reading popsci books is not better than reading fiction, in fact, it is very much worse.
>Some light novels and visual novels are better than books.
Not than literature, but it seems to me that anyone who denies that is blatantly unaware of how much crap has been writer.
>Reading literature alone will get you nowhere even in literature
There seems to be an interesting in reading literary works, but I hardly see recommended textbooks about it. Reading Ulysses without three or four studies is not different of having read genre fiction - it's unlikely that you have been able to get most of the literature out of it, and while it is a worthwhile occupation study the book by itself, in many aspects it will be like re-inventing the wheel - it's better to know what has been said before of having any shitty opinions.

Aren't you rubbed raw?

Maybe you could try reading while you play with yourself.

I have only read a book this year so far.

I use really good lube

>1 book in 8 months
was it war and peace or something

I am ungrateful for your presence and I am better than you all.

Awful

I like Shakespeare, but I just don't get the big deal about his work, I never say this to anyone because they immediately scoff (note, they never explain why, they just scoff or laugh, I don't think they know themselves).

How many book have you read that were published BEFORE Shakespeare?

>reading for enjoyment
Full fucking plebeian
I bet you watch movies or looking at art for enjoyment too

Dostojevski is my favourite writer. Don Quixote is good, but overrated and so are the Greeks. A lot of sci-fi books are great. Last one:
I read for enjoyment

>I just don't get the big deal about his wor
Expansion of the English language. Many of the words we use today were 'invented' (taken and changed) by Shakespeare. Often dozen of new words can be found in his plays that are common language today; nearly 2000 in total.
New forms of drama. Combined things that never were done before, for example romance and tragedy - there never was a romantic tragedy before Shakespeare.
Introduced a more depth psychology in characters by allowing them going on an internal monologue during soliloquies - this also was never seen before Shakespeare.
Broke with linear plots, having many lines intertwined together. Added a major relevance to emotions of characters than their actions - in a way the plot became an instrument for character development.
[long etc]

>didn't enjoy any of the philosophy between stoics and stirner, with the exception of descartes
>enjoyed almost none of the english literature I've read except for shakespeare

>>>/reddit/

>Don Quixote is good, but overrated and so are the Greeks

It's almost impossible for the Greeks to be overrated. That's like saying 'yeah the foundation of this house is important but people constantly overstate its worth'

Older you mean 20+ right? Mein Gott.

>The Catcher in the Rye sucks ass.
>Women, blacks, and gays can't write decent books. They can only cry about how hard it is to be a woman/black/gay. (At least the majority of them can't. )

I think most books in general are too long. I often get the feeling that an entire book can be summed up in a page or two of text, including everything important.

I can understand not being interested in books about muh discrimination but that just means you're reading the wrong ones. If you've read widely you've probably enjoyed books by gay authors without realising it

I think William Gass is the best writer alive.
Late medieval poetry, especially from France, is formidable.
Sometimes I can't tell if I dislike or like certain books.
I hate writers like DFW, Franzen, Zadie Smith ahd the likes.

Gay men are about the only minority group who can write about anything but "muh discrimination". Chuck pahlaniuk and Brett Easton Ellis are good examples. I've never read a decent book by a black man, and most books written by women are over-sentimental.

>>Women, blacks, and gays can't write decent books. They can only cry about how hard it is to be a woman/black/gay. (At least the majority of them can't. )
most authors suck and you just notice more when they're part of or write about groups you're not a part of

>I hate writers like DFW, Franzen, Zadie Smith ahd the likes.

What qualities do they have that you dislike?

(I have not read any of them)

>I have dropped Faulkner twice and think he's garbage.

>i don't enjoy stream-of-consciousness

Stopped reading at ''my taste is very likely better than yours'

I read 20 pages a day in order to think about what I've read. I wish I could remember more of what I've read. I'm also trying too hard in order not to be such a pseud

>What? Do people read for the sake of enjoyment?
Yes, I read for enjoyment, not to impress my mum, unlike you.

but Roald Dahl is based af

Your mum is very impressed by him though.

I buy books far faster than I can read them. I live a really simple life and they're just about the only material thing I spend money on other than necessities, so I think it is justified. However, I have about 50 books, several of which are 200,000+ words long, in my backlog.

it is

>all of them can't!!!
>...well most of them.
thanks kid, real insightful

read erotica

I bought the entire SFF section of a used book store that was closing down. Still haven't finished building a library to house them.

>there never was a romantic tragedy before Shakespeare
[citation needed]

m'lady

>Apart from a handful of authors I can't into contemporary fiction

actually, motherfucker, here you provide a counter example

oedipus
medea
wow, so difficult

Look up "guerilla marketing," I'm literally getting paid to post disguised advertisement here... And it works.

who for?

Not going to say but I do know other companies come here as well.

Also, you can't trust any online newspapers because they get paid by companies and the companies will edit articles and decide whether any article gets published (used to work with a certain company before they were busted by the FBI).

btfo

I bought Gaskun's book.

a-and i kinda liked it

Levenson, Jill L. Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, Oxford University Press, 2000, pages 49–50.

In her discussion about gamma the play's genre, Levenson quotes scholar H.B. Charlton Romeo and Juliet creating a new genre of "romantic tragedy."