Im 18 Never read a book entirely in my life 1984 interests me.

>>8436974
dunno. what kind of shit are you into interests-wise?

>>8436974
>Good place to start?
Absolutely, all my friends at /pol/ read it. You will soon see the comparisons between contemporary governance and 1984. It is a true redpill!

>>8436974
I'd say it is actually, its the first serious novel I read when I was younger and probably what got me into literature in ernest

>>8436977
Politics

>>8436980
>/pol/

Unironically think they'd prefer to live under Bigbrother

>>8436984
Well, I guess 1984 would probably be a good place to start then.

You into anything else?

>>8436984
>into politics
>doesn't read

You probably don't know shit about politics

>>8437225
Give the guy a break you spastic, he's trying to get better

>>8437225
It's entirely possible to live a fulfilling political life, engaged with your community, without ever picking up some dusty old tome of theory. Your conception of politics as an entirely cerebral exercise, rather than something that is lived and participated in, speaks volumes.

Leave the house you fucking neet

>>8437241
He probably follows some meme ideology like Objectivism or Evola who no one could intuitively follow before indoctrinating themselves

>>8437241
No it's not retard.

It's possible to have a completely uneducated opinion based on nothing but your immediate surroundings without reading but it is not in fact possible to be properly into politics without reading and you're a retard for thinking you can.

>>8436974
You're young. Don't let people here decide for you as most of them didn't read much and just like to meme and feel part of something.
It's a good book. Engaging and entertaining.
Good luck and remember: don't listen to what /lit/ has to say.

>>8436974
nigga if you're into politics start with this and then brave new world and those intro level not very entertaining books. 1984 is slightly entertaining though, read closely bro.
if you want to read non fiction politics, read zizek and mearsheimer, what else tho, my /lit/ brothas

>>8436974
There are worse places to start. 1984 and animal farm are pretty good introductory /lit/ which is why high school classes often read them. It's a good balance of introducing ideas, using characters to represent bigger ideas, and some surface level debate between modern and postmodern modes of truth. Some people really don't like Orwell's prose but it never bothered me.

If I had to name a few good starter works for a neophyte who is not so interested in ancient works I'd say Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, Lord of the Rings and Dune are good introductory material. Read these and then read essays and academic works about them. It will really help you start to understand how you should go about looking for and interpreting subtext and give you some ideas on how you can interpret works in different ways.

As for ancient works, Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are the fundamental /startwiththegreekscore/ authors. Homer and Herodotus make the best starting points because they are a blend of fantasy and real historical events.

>>8436984
>>8436984
I'd recommend starting with a more fun read like Game Change before getting into stuff like 1984 and Brave New World. Not that those books are particularly challenging, but the constant scanning for symbolism and motifs could be demotivating if you're not in the habit of reading yet.

>>8436984
If you are in to politics the ultimate redpills can be found in Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian war, Aristotle's politics and Machiavelli's discourses on Livy. Plato kind of tears Democracy a new asshole in The Republic, but it's not primarily a work about politics in general.

The works of these four guys were basically the foundations of the US constitution and only through reading them can you understand how great of a document the original plus the bill of rights is.

>>8436984
Foundation trilogy. Hands down.

>>8437241
If this were true, a good number of politicians could come out with totally uneducated backgrounds. I'm not saying political savvy and reading are entirely mutually exclusive but for the vast majority of people who are into politics but haven't read much, they're functioning only off of grossly oversimplified caricatures of the systems they endorse and condemn

>>8436987
Only Big Brother Adolf specifically.

>>8437466
Listen man, I'm not going to disagree with you entirely. The ideal is a healthy medium between theory and praxis. But the anon I was replying to didn't believe it was possible that the o.p could be informed about politics without reading books. For one thing, with the amount of information online (I.e secondary sources about politics) this is patently untrue. And secondly, I honestly do think that it's possible to be know what you believe and to act on those beliefs (attending protests voting or whatever). And I don't think that's a controversial claim outside of this board

I mean, I get it. This is a literature board. Literature and reading is tremendously important to all of us. For a good number of us, it forms the centrepiece of our lifestyle (that's certainly true for me; it's my most important interest and I don't know what I'd do without it). But we should also be understanding that for a lot of people, intelligent people, reading the classics is neither important nor essential for them to live meaningful lives. We're all here for a reason; people who make the transition from Harry Potter to "serious" literature do so for a number of fairly similar reasons (which mostly revolve around need rather than want) and its easy to project this importance onto the actual world, to say that what's necessary for us is necessary for everyone. And it's pretty unique to readers too. Imagine if /sci/ began claiming you couldn't truly know what you believe without a grounding in the sciences. We'd laugh it off, and rightfully so, because expecting everyone to be as interested as you are in your area of expertise is narcissism of the highest order.

The original reply to the o.p. was snotty and condescending, and maybe my reply was a little kneejerk. But I stand by the basic premise, that on an anonymous forum the claim to know whether another anons interest in politics is legitimate or not is bizarre and unfounded.

>>8437587
Without understanding of political theory all you are doing is engrossing yourself in populism.

>>8436987
/pol/ is definitely big government/authoritarian as fuck. The alt-right is essentially national socialism with alt-rights typically calling for government intervention both socially (banning gay marriage, strict rules to prevent "degeneracy") and economically (protectionist, calls for regulation of the financial sector).

>>8437529
He basically was in the novel, it was a National Socialist state

>>8437628
Actually read my post

>>8436984
You want to read stories about politics or political philosophy?

>>8436984

then read a book on political theory you idiot

>>8437368
Interested to hear how you think Machiavelli was more influential than Locke in the creation of the American constitution.

File: 1427779259667.png (2MB, 1053x1070px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1053x1070px

>>8436974
>"18"
>Never read a book entirely in my life
I think you need to leave.