Do you think there are books that aren't worth reading after a certain age?

Do you think there are books that aren't worth reading after a certain age?

For example, I'm 25 and I only got into reading books "seriously" like 3 years ago. I've read Infinite Jest, Ulysses, 2666 and The Recognitions to name some, but I've never read any of this stuff:

>Of Mice and Men
>Lolita
>1984
>One Hundred Years of Solitude
>War and Peace
>Don Quixote
>The Great Gatsby
>Lolita
>Catch-22
>A Heart of Darkness
>In Search of Lost Time
>The Odyssey
>The Catcher in the Rye
>The Sound and the Fury
>nothing from Hemingway
>nothing from Shakespeare except Julius Caesar
>nothing from Bukowski
>nothing from Dostoevsky
>nothing from Murakami

I don't know, but after experiencing postmodernism and postmodern literary techniques I feel like I won't find that much pleasure in reading many of the stuff that preceded it. Like there isn't much to gain from reading all that entry-level stuff or a Steinbeck book that's being read in high schools and by people who aren't that into literature. And all those books seem rather conventional and filled with the same tired old cliches and plot points told many times before. Reading East of Eden (for example) after Infinite Jest is like driving a Prius after a Ferrari. Why would anyone want to downgrade?

I don't know, what do you think?

I feel this way about films too, at 17 I was super impressed by the likes of Bergman or Bresson, but I didn't see everything from them.

If I'd watch something from them now, I feel like I wouldn't get anything from their films. It would be worthwhile if I've seen them at that age, but now, it's just pointless after I discovered people like Lav Diaz or Wang Bing.

What is it about post-modernism that you like? If you like maximalist prose, you might be into some modernist writers like Joyce or Henry James. If you like metatextuality, you'd probably enjoy Spanish-language writers like Cortazar or Borges or Pablo Neruda. Other earlier works are worthwhile. Post-modernism is super cool, but other stuff is enjoyable too.

You could always jump away from novels and get into plays. Modernist plays were real neato, and so are post-modern plays.

But you're going to have to read medieval and golden age plays to really get everything out of any play written in the 20th century. Reading the Greeks would help too, but only abstractly. I forgot to mention that.

>I don't like 90% of the classical literature

Come on now, I agree that some of the canon is not that enjoyable, but you can't just throw away literally hundreds of years of books

That's what's called "a phase", you should grow out of it eventually.

i think that reading east of eden after infinite jest makes no sense. Reading tome after tome of literary fiction without any purpose or connecting pattern seems dreadful and defeating the purpose of reading desu senpai

You literally have to

I find the reverse is true. When you grow up you will abandon pomo and see that it cannot stand before the classics.

I'm glad to see you haven't gotten too much shit for this post. I've felt/still sometimes feel the same way. I missed a lot of books in high school. When I first started getting seriously into lit (19), I read a lot of them to compensate. Then I found some authors who appealed to me more, and I never really made it back to the high school stuff. I missed some good ones, and I'm certain I'd like a lot of them if I'd "go back" and read them. But I guess that idea of "going back" is what you have to get out of your head. Recent(ish) lit is isn't inherently better than older stuff. Those books you listed have a lot to offer. I've read the majority of them. You'd probably like Lolita, just based on what you've said here. That's just one example. I'd say out of every four or five books you read, go read one that you feel like you "missed."

Just my two cents. I can't say I hold myself to that standard, but I try. Planning on reading Of Mice and Men for the first time later tonight (yes, I know what happens).

Even though you might feel like you've moved on from "entry-level" stuff, you clearly still feel like you're missing out on stuff, and that feeling will probably remain until you read the majority of those books on your list. That feeling is also what drives me to read more in general. We're all always missing out on something. Good luck. Hope this helped.

Faulkner and Nabokov have stylistic quirks in their most well known/highly regarded books so if you're into "postmodern techiques" they won't feel too out of place. A lot of the other things you listed are standard high school fare and are definitely skippable. Shakespeare can be appreciated no matter what your favorite literary movement is. Especially since there's an element of self-awareness in certain plays of his that anticipates later pomo stuff in its own way.

Bukowski, Hemingway, and Murakami are largely if not entirely ignorable.

PASTA
A
S
T
A

Serious question, op, did you look the text up on the archive and copypaste it or do you have it saved somewhere on your computer?

>
OP should kill himself

Infinite Jest is nothing more than a sexually frustrated pseudo genius trying to contort an almost good train of thought into something as moving and artistic as a novel but ultimately exposing everything that's wrong with said authors entire generation unintentionally in a tiresome 1200 some pages. The jackass even had the gall to stick his picture on the back of the "novel". Honestly, I''m convinced that the suicide note is being withheld because it would tarnish his estate, ruin his legacy; that faggot was embarrassed about the shit that he wrote.

It's what I wrote and I still feel the same.

Jonathan Franzen pls go

thats why you start with the greeks and finish western cannon chronologically

there are more to literature other than works in english you know user? for instance, brazilian writer machado de assis anticipated and incorporated elements of modernism way before joyce (died in 1908)

Nope. Franzen is terrible because he's unwilling to shoot for the creative ambition that Wallace was going for. He'll almost do something at least interesting in it's uniqueness, but then chokes himself under fear of being as cringy as Wallace. I''ll take Wallace's ambition over Franzen's pussyfooting yawnfest anyday. Both are/were incapable of great literature. Wallace had a chance if he had more patience and less ego

>Only one Shakespeare
In school I had to read a Shakespeare every year from grade 8 to 12

I bet you could enjoy reading Homer or Dostoevsky. Most of the other stuff you listed is probably skippable if you're reading big boy books.

This.

But sometimes it's so tempting to give something like Infinite Jest or Ulysses a try before finishing the Greeks and later the canon... how do I resist this?

you at least have got to Dostoevsky

Forget about murakami and bukowsi tho

but most (not all of those listed books are so easy to read and short that it wouldn't hurt to just take a week and go through them just to context yourself

*most (not all) of those listed books

Lotsa people did tbqhwy senpai, as much as I like Machado.

THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? WHAAATTTT IS YOUR POINT?


>Lav Diaz or Wang Bing
Really?

Bresson and Bergman are still the gold standard. Stick with them.

Now please shut up and read. I don't think you needed to make this thread to improve as a human being.

Fucking pretentious fags everywhere i swear. GTFO Veeky Forums

Yes, after existing for a specific amount of time, when you attempt to read these novels there will, instead of words, just be rows and rows of swastikas and drawing of penises