Ok, before you guys jump on my throath the points of this thread is to see some arguments, the pic is just to gather some attention and is also related to this thread.
So, is there such a thing as "a book that doesn't deserve to be read"? Or reading anything is aways better than read nothing?
In my opinion, and probably this will be the case for the vast majority of this board, I think life is too short to waste time on bad books, but how do you face an arguments like:
>"how can you know the book/author is bad if you never read it?"
how do you respond withouth a fallacy? Like saying "I don't need to prove hemlock to know it is poisonous"
Time is limited, quality over quantity.
That said, if you're going to shit-talk a book you should have read it. It's one thing to say "I didn't think the book was worth reading." and another to go "That book is shit. The author is trash. I know because I read it on /lit/."
As for responding to that question, you probably shouldn't put yourself in the position. Why are you having an argument about the quality of a book you haven't read? The best rebuttal you have is the truth - "I only know what I've heard from opinions I trust." (and I presume you trust them if you're parroting their opinions).
I think every book deserves being given a chance, even if that chance is limited to reading a synopsis to determine whether it's up your alley. Nothing should be completely dismissed out of hand because someone told you it sucked.
OP is a fag
lol corn
here's the attention your pic gathers, hope you're happy
>>8403606
Schopenhauer quote here