The pretension that literature readers espouse on their chosen consumeristic hobby is shocking...

The pretension that literature readers espouse on their chosen consumeristic hobby is shocking. Film connoisseurs and music lovers do not say that their chosen hobby is essential for being a respectable and well informed individual.

are you kidding me?
just go on /mu/ half that board argues all day about what music normies wouldn't "get" and the other half argues pleb/patrician bs
/tv/ is little better since some kid has tricked them into using kino as an excuse to like transformers

Reading literature isn't a hobby, it's not a bit of fun. It's a necessity in order to be a well rounded, well respected individual.

That's another subject. You're talking about what should be esteemed and canonized in each respective art. Literature readers are pretentious in this too but I have no quarrel with that. I just don't like those that say shit like this .

The way you used the word "consumeristic" is strange. Are you criticizing the reading of literature for being consumerist, or are you just making a "you too" by saying all art is consumerist? If it's the second one it's in the same vein as Orwell's "all art is political" pigeonholing

It is the second one but you can forget about that. All I'm trying to say is literature is just as "valuable" as music and film or any other art. To champion it as the sole source of intellect or even the best source of intellectual discourse is false.

do you think its pleasurable to sit and read hegel? for fuck sake

this post is so shockingly retarded and naive it baffles me

I'm curious to where you are meeting people who say literature is the highest source of Intellect?
far as mainstream society thinks literature is dead.

Is this movie any good, lads?

This is true. People disagree with statements like these not because the statements are wrong but because those people want to be considered good, respectable people without exerting any effort.

It's a common ideal that people aspire to be a well read individual and they think that it will make them smarter. Or people like Harold Bloom who think that to think well is to read well.

>literature
>consumeristic
Wrong.

>reading literature for social prestige
Psued

are there any book that poke fun at the reader for supporting consumerism and buying the authors book?

...

Literature is not the sole source of intellect but it's a damn good one, much better than music and film.

Yeah
But that's not an interesting thread now is it
Doesn't really belong here either does it

>buying physical objects = consumerism
Bookshelf threads are cancer though

books are not exactly objects

literature imitates film

excuse me?

Why are you ignoring me I DEMAND AN ANSWER

You're literally retarded.

Protip: there's more to literature than YA.
Protip 2: literature is much older than film. Like, a lot older. You'd be surprised.

If you can't into reading literature for enjoyment you've either been reading for two months or are autistic

>This is your brain on literature
7/10 this might get genuine replies

What do you expect some will like it some will call it pretentious garbage. If you are interested in it enough check it out.

it's just fun man, chill out

You're not wrong in thinking every art has the same merit, you're wrong in thinking film and music aren't things to pay attention and analyze as you do with books. Probably has to do with shit tastes tbqh

This

The pretension that literature readers, film connoseurs and music lovers espouse on their chosen consumeristic hobby is shocking. Gamers do not say that their chosen hobby is essential for being a respectable and well informed individual.

>you're wrong in thinking film and music aren't things to pay attention and analyze as you do with books.
Let me clear something up. I'm not saying that at all. Quite the contrary actually. I'm saying that all of them can and should be analyzed the same amount.
>Probably has to do with shit tastes tbqh
I really didn't want to respond because of this.

>a hip hop song and a Yeats poem have the same depth
>a film and a novel have the same depth

Why do you have to compare a hip hop song to a Yeats poem? That's selection bias.

Literature is just as valuable but it's not equally as worthy of being talked about. Writing about music in the modern day (most of music journalism/criticism) will either descend into a series of buzzwords, or it will become a sterile analytical exercise. The lack of cerebral discussion isn't because there is a lack of cerebral-ness in music; moreso that it is much harder to reference the cerebral part of a musical piece than it is for, say, a book, which will often state these things more directly

>He thinks Yeats is deep

>theres equal merit in listening to 4 minutes of a hip hop song and reading a 700 pages book

I don't think you know what selection bias is. You said
>all of them can and should be analyzed the same amount.
Which is false.

Film connoisseurs and music lovers do not say that their hobby is essential to live a fulfilling life. Maybe, they might say that it is essential for their life but they do not say that it is an objective fact that everyone must have heard a mozart concerto or watched a Pasolini film to be a respectable individual the same way that literature readers view someone who hasn't read a play by Shakespeare as barely human.

Literature has been around for millennia; and if you count storytelling and oral poetry the art has been around for almost as long as language itself. there's no argument that literature is important to human society and plays a role that newer media like music and EXTREMELY recent media like film could ever hope to fill. why do you think 90% of popular film has dialogue and 90% of popular music has lyrics? because they imitate literature.

also, literature is the primary method of political and philosophical expression, where music and film are rarely that. it is absolutely necessary for being a well-informed individual.

>he thinks some nigger mumbling about guns and bitches is as deep as Yeats

>all of them
Meaning all of those art forms. Not all of their output.

Also forgot to mention that most music journalists are very thick and/or dumb, esp. unintelligent

>literature readers view someone who hasn't read a play by Shakespeare as barely human
nobody does that

So you think that the abstract ideas of art should be analyzed the same amount but individual examples should not? What are you even saying here?

>Hasn't even read Yeats because he thinks he's too deep

No?
>“Some people have lives; some people have music.”
― John Green

>“Fairy tales only happen in movies."
― George Melies

Okay that was hyperbolic but what I'm trying to get at is that some avid readers will view people who are not well read as unintelligent where as you would be hard pressed to find music and film consumers who feel the same way about someone who doesn't participate in their hobby.

This is my last response to you. I'm saying that there are astounding works in each respective art that deserve deep analysis. There are also less than stellar pieces from each field that do not deserve any discourse.

>some avid readers will view people who are not well read as unintelligent
this is generally true, though

>you would be hard pressed to find music and film consumers who feel the same way about someone who doesn't participate in their hobby
that's because literally everyone listen to music and watches movies. and if you're saying you've never met someone whose pretentious about not having seen "classic" film or classical music... ooh boy, you're in for a treat:

Sure /mu/ might scoff at those with basic tastes but I don't think they view those people as less intelligent they just view them as having bad taste.

People who don't read are objectively less intelligent. The only thing worse than not reading is reading kid's books like Harry Potter as an adult. Think about it: when you read Harry Potter passively, without knowing anything else, you're consuming cliches and ideas that will influence your worldview and make it simpler.

Listening to Katy Perry all day is also feeding your mind cliches but that doesn't make you less intelligent.

nobody learns when they listen to music.
when you read, you learn. its not that "not reading makes you dumb", its the fact that if you never read you're never smart to begin with.

Cinephiles, audiophiles, bibliophiles, etc. are all fucking garbage as far as I'm concerned. No depth of knowledge, no awareness of theory.

Books, not movies or music, have shaped the way people think for millennia.
Books are better for normies because they are more demanding than the other two art forms and force people to use their brain more actively.
They are also associated with knowledge because you learn by reading a serious book about a subject, not watching some diluted documentary.

I'm not talking about educational books. Those obviously make someone knowledgeable in a certain subject. My objection pertains solely to fictional literature.

sylvano bussotti and other make you think when you listen. can't i learn if i'm thinking?

Ok. My first two points still stand

what about doggophiles?

Music has shaped the way people think for millennia as well.

that's a rarity. and the information content of music is always much, much, much, much, much lower than the written word. music is primarily emotional response (or dance)

citation needed.

>I'm not talking about educational books
>My objection pertains solely to fictional literature.
those two are not exclusive.

Really? Could you give me some examples comparable to Homer's works or the holy texts?

But this is different than them saying music and movies are all pleb.

My diary desu

>RANDOM PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET MUST DECIDE WHAT I SPEND MY TIME DOING!

would you considered an expresstivity of a musician and the affect it has on the listener lesser to the author

Apples and oranges, why can't you understand that?

You must have read so few books.

that is, is an "emotional response" less than response from information content

>that sentence
at least you tried

Apples and oranges, why can't you understand that?

You must have listened to so few songs.

Now see how the first one is arrogant, but the second is fucking ridiculous?

no idea what you're asking me. literature can have both emotional response and concrete information content. music is abstract.

this thread should get deleted. OP's argument has been thoroughly disputed but every time he's argued into a corner, he stops responding and starts replying to someone else.

What you perceive as my replies are not mine. Most replies to myself have been answered.

>using archaic formal syntax in order to appear refined, intelligent or reasonable when defending an incorrect point

Summary of this thread tbqhwu

Trump didn't read any lit and look where he ended up.

>espouse on
Jesus Christ stop trying to sound intellectual when you clearly aren't. It comes across as horribly pretentious.

Interesting point, though.

>interesting point

You're not so bright yourself, this thread pops up atleast a few times a week in all different forms, the main one being wah someone hurt my feelings and my tastes got shit on.

I dunno, I've stopped being an elitist in my old age but if you pushed me I'd definitely say that anybody calling themselves a 'film buff' who hadn't seen a film by, I dunno, Bergman, Pasolini, Tarkovsky or even somebody like Antonioni was fucking kidding themselves.

They actually do though.

You think film buffs don't look down on the masses when they rush to watch the next transformers?

Likewise, do you think music buffs have a high opinion of Justin Bieber fans?

You see it more with literature because the barrier of entry is simply higher. Watching a movie or listening to music is a passive activity, the average person makes no effort in doing either of the two. Surely you've noticed most consider watching a movie or listening to music a leisure activity, but not reading.

However, reading a book requires constant effort. When everyone watches movies and listens to music, everyone is legitimized in the opinions they have over those mediums. If you ask someone on the street what their favorite movies and bands are, they are likely to give an answer. If you ask them the same question but for books, it's possible you might not receive an answer.

The inaccessibility of books might create a more elitist attitude within those who read seriously, but don't fool yourself into thinking that's only true for books. Anyone that dedicates himself to something naturally becomes more elitist in that domain.

true tbqhwyf

The statement was probably an olive branch because he was too afraid of an e-confrontation as a consequence of his criticism.
Pretty pathetic tbqh

>posts movie based on a book

actually an autist would find enjoyment in literature more easily than neurotypical person.

And yet here you are, trying to start some petty quarrel over it like a school kid.

Am I a consumer if I only get books from the library.

And fail to punctuate correctly?