Explain why these things are wrong: >reading for the plot

>>8415559
>Joyce
>what is it then?
>do what you want

>>8415559
there's nothing wrong with those statements, although it's wrong to think it's the only way to get something from a book

>reading for the plot

Best to just read for experience

>prose is not the most important in a book

I don't disagree in all cases

>I read to be entertained

Good for you

>>8415559
>reading for the plot
Plot is the lowest form of narrative. Not that plot "bad" per se, plot is necessary, it's what guides the narrative, it's the skeleton to the muscles and organs that are themes, prose, characterization, and philosophy, all of which are impossible without a plot to drive them. That said plot often offers the only thing it can, sensationalism, and offering nothing else's cheapens a work and it is less conducive to rereads.
What's the point of rereading a story that offers nothing but action scenes and plot twists? Simply experiencing a plot expires it's merit, whereas philosophy, allusion, empathetic characters, and prose keep a reader invested and willing to revisit a work.
>prose is not the most important in a book
Why would it be. That's like saying that the most important part of Bach's cello sonata is the cello. Prose is the voice, it's important in its own right, but it falls secondary to the content it carries. See Dostoyevsky.
>I read to be entertained
There is nothing wrong with entertainment, but if that's the only reason you're reading that's like scraping frosting off a cake with your finger and saying you appreciate the culinary arts. Literature as a medium has so much more to offer than to simply amuse you.
Reading for entertainment is also conducive to developing awful taste and missing out on some dank shit

>>8415618
Well said anon

>>8415618
Learn English, retard.