Can someone enlighten me on the point of reading?

>>8665751
No you fucking idiot

>>8665751
How, if you don't yet acknowledge the point of reading? Do you expect us to make a vocaroo?

If you parents didn't, I feel sorry for you.

>>8665751
There isn't one. Reading is simply a hedonistic pleasure that evokes a feeling of percieved enlightenment in the reader whether or not it had an effect on their general psyche.

>>8665769

This, books are as disposable as Mars bars and marvel movies.

The academia-media-publishing industrial complex has successfully marketed books as tools for social posturing.

>>8665775
I think you've gone a little to far. Books do still tend to stimulate more thought than say, a mars bar.

This thread embarrasses me more than anything i've seen in recent times on /lit/

It is literature that gives us a subjective experience of the other's consciousness. Just like the other arts, it is only through this that human subjectivity becomes tangible. Only through fiction can you learn what it felt like to live in Nazi Germany, or what it meant to grow up in 19th century Texas. Not only this: Art, in general, also contrasts Reality, it denies it's claim of totality, by proposing an alternative or a different perspective. It also proposes new thoughts, new perspectives on various subjects and allows for true identification with others. In this way it can be curing, by communicating to the reader that the pain and joy he feels are universal.

That is my personal interpretation. You will find endless amounts of interpretations as to what makes literature so important and such a fulfilling and often catastrophic experience.

As to contrast the opinions of the pseuds that posted in this thread, here's a quote from Kafka.

>“I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound or stab us. If the book we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for? So that it will make us happy, as you write? Good Lord, we would be happy precisely if we had no books, and the kind of books that make us happy are the kind we could write ourselves if we had to. But we need books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us. That is my belief.”

What the purpose of non-fiction is should be clear.

Well you have to read to understand what's going on in the world. As far as reading novels and poetry goes, it's supposed to be pleasurable. They give you a deeper understanding of yourself, others, and the themes of life.

>>8665751
Depending on what rubs you which way it can aid in allowing a variety of pleasure.

>>8665958
>this is what book fags actually believe
No, reading is literally just for fun, when it comes down to it. You can put all these profound reasons on top of literature to make yourself feel better if you want, but reading simply does not compare to real life. Put the books down and go live, and you'll see why books aren't that great.

>>8665974
What a profound distinction you make between "Real life" and reading. Go back to /fantasy/ general.

>>8665899
The fast-absorbing simple carbohydrates in a mars bar are ideal fuel for the brain/nervous system. Fibrous, nutrient deficient literature can hardly compete.

File: kazooie.jpg (9KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 480x360px

>>8665751
Fun!

>>8665751
It's entertainment obviously.

If you can get away with living a happy life without reading any great novels, you should.

File: cyphersteak.jpg (310KB, 1905x792px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1905x792px

>>8666017
This.

realized this recently but if you're feeling pretty shitty a good way to not think about things is by reading