Everyone should read books and write alongside them a fully fledged summary with relevant citations, ideas, interpretations, criticisms etc and integrate them into a new/existing Wikipedia article so they never have to read the book again and neither do future generations.
Try to prove me wrong. Just try.
Other urls found in this thread:
If your goal is not "read and appreciate a book for the work of art it is" then sure
Look up "death of the author" negro
Lmao, imagine being such a pleb that you still stick with the death of the author schtick.
I agree desu. This is what textbooks usually do.
I dislike it when most fields do this but philosophy insists on reading the original book. One can always do that if you think it is necessary.
So I do not agree with your point that we never should read such a book again. But I can agree with you otherwise. Having to read all the original works in philosophy just shortens the time I could read about other fields.
plato.stanford.edu does a good job at this.
Literally no one could prove me wrong.
>wah wah pay attention to my shit bait
fuck off
sage
So you can't prove me wrong?
Prove you wrong? You're trying to argue that a "a fully fledged summary with relevant citations, ideas, interpretations, criticisms etc" will reliably be so comprehensive as to make reading the original work redundant. Aside from ignoring questions of subjective criticism and errors, pleasure from reading, or the ongoing state of research that makes such summaries obsolete, it's still an idiotic argument. One of the best features of a good work of literature is that it can't be reduced and encapsulated so easily. Trying to do something like you describe to, for instance, Four Quartets, or Ulysses, would end up with Wiki entries much longer than the original works, and they would still be pathetically incomplete.
What would the point be?
You're stripping away all of what makes reading enjoyable and just making it about milking a book for morals that may or may not exist, and tossing anything remotely interesting into the trash. It kills the job of the writer, and that of the reader at the same time. tl;dr: You're retarded, pure and simple.
Literally no argument aside from "not for fiction!!!"
Fiction is for plebs.
Also, the Wikipedia article being longer is nonsense and even if it was, at least it would contain all the criticisms too so your point is invalid like your brainlet self.