I am a litizen but I'm starting to see reading books as

people have different opinions

>>8108872
well, OP, if you were reading to be cool but hate the cool kids, maybe you could hate yourself for who you are cool/uncool and leave books out of it. or did a book hurt you?

File: image.jpg (81KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x720px

>I'm starting to see reading books as a faggot hobby

I'm falling headfirst for this b8 but whatever

>Books R Art... but only if a famous publisher publishes it!
This only ever comes up when we dismiss self-published books. It's not because we demand that books be published by a famous publisher, it's because self-published books suck 99% of the time. There's a correlation with a very obvious cause.

>Reading is noble.. but NEETs who read all day are loserz!
There's disagreement over this. But as Greek mythology should tell you, there's a safe middle way here. Besides, all the NEETs ive seen on this board never manage to read any more in a day than I do.

>Reading teaches you about the human condition... but don't imply that leaving the house can teach you that too, you'll expose my boring book as a scam that can't even pretend to be entertainment.
Never hears anyone here say that reading is about understanding the human condition. And if you're upset that /lit/ doesn't appreciate good things besides literature, you're a true moron.

>Book quality is subjective... unless an academic says it's objective!
If people on /lit/ were prepared to admit that quality is subjective, there would be no /lit/. Tey again, dipshit.

This is some real low quality bait

>>8108872
Most of /lit/ enjoys indie publishers, not necessarily famous ones. Dalkey Archive gets a lot of love.

>>8108944
I love you man

>>8108872
>academia-media-publishing industrial complex cock

They literally demand you don't read anything thats not James Joyce and don't read the translations of anything

>Books R Art... but only if a famous publisher publishes it!

Never heard this before

>but NEETs who read all day are loserz!

They are, and its not nobility faggot its just a preferred hobby and art form around here....on the literature forum....

>but don't imply that leaving the house can teach you that too

Most of the time it can't. Ever met a redneck before?

>unless an academic says it's objective

Literally no one has said that

Usually what people see as meaningful or "self-improving" is completely arbitrary and most people who are really keen to always be meaningful and self-improving really need some kind of authority to tell them just what and how and it often seems completely arbitrary.
For example if a person wants to be certifiably educated it isn't just enough for them to sit around and read things but you also need a school to reinforce, confirm that they actually understand through tests and grades, give them a clear idea of what is failure and success. Yet when a form of entertainment(video games) that actually does this, just what the school does people hate the very idea of it.

File: kafka2.jpg (56KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x333px

>>8108935
I definitely think quality is subjective, I just come here because it's entertaining and familiar, and because there's occasionally discussion that doesn't revolve around braindead shit-flinging.

>>8108872
Yes, /lit/ is garbage, but people read books for a long time before /lit/ existed. The lack of perspective and maturity among people who supposedly read a lot is astounding, I agree. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.