"You could be reading something substantial"

Hope I understood you correctly. My strategy goes like this (only applies to intellectual books):
>if book is widely read
>high probability of me coming into contact with it due to interaction with other people or by reading other books
>thus in general not worth reading
This approach goes directly against /lit/'s philosophy.

>>8740979
Forgot, when I need to understand something better then only then, will I consider reading it myself.

Are you reading to impress others or for your own joy/betterment? That should answer your question.

>>8740966
sounds like youre getting cucked desu. read books you like reading. the only reason people read all the shit on the memelist is because it was liked by a lot of people, so you have a high probability of liking it too. im going to use the example of moby dick. i hear a lot of people say Man that book was boring as fuck.. but they still finished it because of some sense of duty or shame or whatever else bullshit. now im not knocking moby dick or anything, its a great book. but i guarantee you no one has ever been reading harry potter or john green or some shit and going man, i sure wish i was reading some boring ass whaling essays.

Kind of rambling but my main point is that if youre reading a book and you find yourself day dreaming about another book, just go read it. fuck the canon, fuck the pseuds, fuck "literary progression"

>>8741053
I replied here above. When it comes to fiction, it doesn't hurt to read 'meme' books. You should.
But once you read the first pages, you should be able to conclude yourself whatever you like it or not, and that should decide whatever you finish it or not.

I actually myself read some works because they have such prestige or popularity, and so finished them, but didn't even enjoy them in any way. Will never do that again.

>>8741069
agree

>>8740966
Reading is simply a form of absorbing written information, so it's an extremely broad statement and completely dependent on whatever information you're looking to absorb, but I can tell you probably just mean literature. That said, I don't see what the big deal with reading something outside the "classics". Literature is art, and a writer in 2016, with the ability to learn from every other published author and philosopher since the beginning of time, might have a lot to talk about, and could easily end up being part of this "classics" tier you refer to. The best example that is in everyone's face is Infinite Jest - it was just written in 1996 and it's a contender for the most favorited book on this literature board.

Well, what is it you're getting from canonical works that you aren't getting from 'lowbrow' stuff?

>>8741118
cultural capital

>>8741128
But lowbrow pop culture is cultural capital too

>reads classics
>lol tryhard pseud
>reads anything else
>lol plen
You cant win OP, just follow whatever Bloom says and take breaks to read whatever else

>>8740979
This is actually not entirelly wrong, when it comes to works that are regarded as highly influential there's a pretty good chance you have already been exposed to most of it in bits and pieces through other media.

>>8741239
This t.b.h. Many lit images are featured in the Simpsons, for example.

>>8741069
I agree. I don't think is wrong in anyway to look for books to read on lists like /lit/'s top 100, I do that myself because they are """""guaranteed to be great books""""", but as you said, as soon as I feel like the only reason for me to continue reading it is to be able to say I finish it, I drop it.