Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
I read books for their engaging stories... not the message i'm suppose to receive or the sole fact they're "classics"
Somehow, I feel like this makes me a bad human, but i'm not sorry about it.
I'd take The Golden Compass and Harry Potter over Catcher in the Rye, Infinite Jest, and For Whom the Bell Tolls any day of the week. I keep Jane Austen novels on my shelf to seem more astute, however I only made it halfway through Emma and a quarter of the way though Pride and Prejudice.
Any other plebs out there that pick up books for the story and not the "amazing metaphor and cultural awareness" (no matter how pretentious) a book tries to convey?
>>
what if I don't find stories in themselves to be engaging
>>
Catcher in the Rye is a pretty engaging story. Persuasion is probably the best story of Austen, though Emma is pretty good in that front too.
>>
>reading for plot
>>
>>7743756
Borges' review of the Invention of Morel is a defense of the adventure novel.
But Borges also read everything else. A mass rejection of not even individual books but whole genre or theme types indicates an inability to context switch in your mind. You wont get the most from the small things in life because youre chasing only highs
>>
>>7743756
>I read books for their engaging stories... not the message i'm suppose to receive or the sole fact they're "classics"
You are correct. You are a better human that anyone who disagrees. Anyone who disagrees with you is the plebeian.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1