I'm curious, and would like to ask a few questions to the

>>8309032
Start with the greeks

>>8309032
Since you understand what makes a great writer and what makes a shitty writer you should be able to appreciate deeper works, instead of "cheap" fiction. However, "cheap" fiction can be entertaining as well from time to time, but I don't consider that "reading". More like time-passing.
It's the same with music. You may listen to a shitty pop album while cooking, but it's not really like closing your eyes, being concentrated and listening to a full jazz album. It's not active music listening, it's 100% passive.
The same goes with reading. Reading passively a "cheap" fiction book's good, but it's not really active reading and as a result you aren't used to actively reading and can't really appreciate a deeper book when it's the time to read it.

>>8309032

you can read fiction which requires no exertion, just don't think that you're better than people who only watch television or play video games. nobody judges you for reading normie-books, but they really don't better you in any way.

most people I think start reading at the behest of some 'existential crisis' or other. Good literature more often than not serves as a sort of consolation for having lived. Like: "yeah this pretty much sucked for us as well and in much the same way only it was five hundred, a thousand, four thousand years ago."

I always recommend weird writers to people who want to get into proper literature-- Franz Kafka's short stories (they are insanely short) or something like Notes from Underground

>>8309032
I'm not reading all that, I'll just answer snippets I did read.

>Is it really that wrong to enjoy writing that isn't very deep?
not at all, but there is a sort of "know your place" stigma agaisnt genre fic in a literature discussion.

>Specifically how the author seems to have a trend where women are increasingly become the main driving focus of the series. Side characters are predominately female, and anyone of significance, at least on the protagonist side, is usually female. Contrast this with the antagonist side being primarily male leadership, and it feels like he's poorly trying to push an agenda. The earlier books had strong female characters, and I liked that, but promoting strong female characters doesn't mean you have to downplay men in general.
Having female mains grants a story zero bonus points. It's good to have them, but you're not going to make your shitty writing less shitty by distracting us with muh diversity. On a larger, less singular scale I guess it's better for the overall demographic for statistics.

>How do you ease yourself into trying to read deeper works?
Start small, then work your way up
>Do you just start small, and then work your way up
Yes
>are there any other processes to it?
It's just books, man
>Are some people doomed to only read 'cheap' fiction
sure
>and is that really such a bad thing?
It isn't bad if you're not into literature.
It's not for everyone, don't force yourself to do something you have no interest in doing.

Most so-called deep fiction isn't really that deep at all aside from stylistic wankery.

The Classics are on-point though, and pretty much should be the measure everything else is put against.

IMO no SFF author has any right to be ignorant of Homer, in particular.

File: ok original.png (20KB, 202x202px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 202x202px

>>8309032
there is no such thing as a good story told badly.
there is such a thing as applying rhetoric tricks on a bad story.

anons will imply there's a skill or a method to writing because that is an easy thing to let someone believe, but it isn't true. language is a medium and it must carry communication to work, so words without aim are just as worthless as you think. what methodology there is is just to let the writer know of their own inadequacy so they may mask or fix it.

>>8309032
>What exactly makes or breaks an author, and their work? Does bad writing alone do this, or are there other factors that may be involved as well? I understand the basic idea of bad writing, essentially a book that poorly tells its story for a variety of reasons. Including reasons such as revealing too much of the story in advance via poor structuring, dropping ideas mid-way, and never re-visiting them, as well as one-dimensional characters or villains with no real depth to them. Are there any other items, barring bad writing, that make you stay away from an author?
Most of the things you list here do not inherently make a work bad.

>Is it really that wrong to enjoy writing that isn't very deep? It ends up with you reading instead of watching TV, playing games, etc. It may open up an appreciation, leading to reading deeper works. I know I don't read too many books that would like be considered fantastic writing by any means.
>Red Rising trilogy; Omega Force, Sword of Truth, Silver Ships series
>Individual books such as Ringworld, Ready Player One, and Forever War
You're implying that reading is inherently superior based solely on medium. Those books listed are absolutely terrible and I'd much rather watch a show such as House of Cards or a movie such as Oldboy before reading any of them. You can enjoy whatever reading you like, this does not make it good or bad either.

>How do you ease yourself into trying to read deeper works? Do you just start small, and then work your way up, or are there any other processes to it? Are some people doomed to only read 'cheap' fiction, and is that really such a bad thing?
See >>8309052

I appreciate the responses. My apologies for wasting your time. I hope you all have a nice day.

>>8309329
Ignore this poster, too, OP. He's a fucking retard.