The pretension that literature readers espouse on their chosen

>>8957917
are you kidding me?
just go on /mu/ half that board argues all day about what music normies wouldn't "get" and the other half argues pleb/patrician bs
/tv/ is little better since some kid has tricked them into using kino as an excuse to like transformers

>>8957917
Reading literature isn't a hobby, it's not a bit of fun. It's a necessity in order to be a well rounded, well respected individual.

>>8957926
That's another subject. You're talking about what should be esteemed and canonized in each respective art. Literature readers are pretentious in this too but I have no quarrel with that. I just don't like those that say shit like this >>8957927.

>>8957917
The way you used the word "consumeristic" is strange. Are you criticizing the reading of literature for being consumerist, or are you just making a "you too" by saying all art is consumerist? If it's the second one it's in the same vein as Orwell's "all art is political" pigeonholing

>>8957960
It is the second one but you can forget about that. All I'm trying to say is literature is just as "valuable" as music and film or any other art. To champion it as the sole source of intellect or even the best source of intellectual discourse is false.

>>8957945
do you think its pleasurable to sit and read hegel? for fuck sake

>>8957917
this post is so shockingly retarded and naive it baffles me

>>8957980
I'm curious to where you are meeting people who say literature is the highest source of Intellect?
far as mainstream society thinks literature is dead.

>>8957917
Is this movie any good, lads?

>>8957927
This is true. People disagree with statements like these not because the statements are wrong but because those people want to be considered good, respectable people without exerting any effort.

>>8957998
It's a common ideal that people aspire to be a well read individual and they think that it will make them smarter. Or people like Harold Bloom who think that to think well is to read well.

>>8957917
>literature
>consumeristic
Wrong.

>>8957927
>reading literature for social prestige
Psued

are there any book that poke fun at the reader for supporting consumerism and buying the authors book?

File: consumerculture.png (41KB, 180x150px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 180x150px

>>8958011

>>8957980
Literature is not the sole source of intellect but it's a damn good one, much better than music and film.

>>8957917
Yeah
But that's not an interesting thread now is it
Doesn't really belong here either does it

>>8958022
>buying physical objects = consumerism
Bookshelf threads are cancer though

>>8958022
books are not exactly objects

>>8958023
literature imitates film

>>8958032
excuse me?

>>8957999
Why are you ignoring me I DEMAND AN ANSWER

>>8958032
You're literally retarded.

Protip: there's more to literature than YA.
Protip 2: literature is much older than film. Like, a lot older. You'd be surprised.

>>8957927
If you can't into reading literature for enjoyment you've either been reading for two months or are autistic

>>8958031
>This is your brain on literature
>>8958032
7/10 this might get genuine replies

>>8958039
What do you expect some will like it some will call it pretentious garbage. If you are interested in it enough check it out.

>>8957917
it's just fun man, chill out

>>8957980
You're not wrong in thinking every art has the same merit, you're wrong in thinking film and music aren't things to pay attention and analyze as you do with books. Probably has to do with shit tastes tbqh

>>8958042
This

File: 0001.jpg (325KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 800x600px

The pretension that literature readers, film connoseurs and music lovers espouse on their chosen consumeristic hobby is shocking. Gamers do not say that their chosen hobby is essential for being a respectable and well informed individual.

>>8958061
>you're wrong in thinking film and music aren't things to pay attention and analyze as you do with books.
Let me clear something up. I'm not saying that at all. Quite the contrary actually. I'm saying that all of them can and should be analyzed the same amount.
>Probably has to do with shit tastes tbqh
I really didn't want to respond because of this.

>>8958071
>a hip hop song and a Yeats poem have the same depth
>a film and a novel have the same depth

>>8958079
Why do you have to compare a hip hop song to a Yeats poem? That's selection bias.

>>8957980
Literature is just as valuable but it's not equally as worthy of being talked about. Writing about music in the modern day (most of music journalism/criticism) will either descend into a series of buzzwords, or it will become a sterile analytical exercise. The lack of cerebral discussion isn't because there is a lack of cerebral-ness in music; moreso that it is much harder to reference the cerebral part of a musical piece than it is for, say, a book, which will often state these things more directly

>>8958079
>He thinks Yeats is deep

>theres equal merit in listening to 4 minutes of a hip hop song and reading a 700 pages book

>>8958085
I don't think you know what selection bias is. You said
>all of them can and should be analyzed the same amount.
Which is false.

>>8958069
Film connoisseurs and music lovers do not say that their hobby is essential to live a fulfilling life. Maybe, they might say that it is essential for their life but they do not say that it is an objective fact that everyone must have heard a mozart concerto or watched a Pasolini film to be a respectable individual the same way that literature readers view someone who hasn't read a play by Shakespeare as barely human.

Literature has been around for millennia; and if you count storytelling and oral poetry the art has been around for almost as long as language itself. there's no argument that literature is important to human society and plays a role that newer media like music and EXTREMELY recent media like film could ever hope to fill. why do you think 90% of popular film has dialogue and 90% of popular music has lyrics? because they imitate literature.

also, literature is the primary method of political and philosophical expression, where music and film are rarely that. it is absolutely necessary for being a well-informed individual.

>>8958097
>he thinks some nigger mumbling about guns and bitches is as deep as Yeats

>>8958100
>all of them
Meaning all of those art forms. Not all of their output.

>>8958091
Also forgot to mention that most music journalists are very thick and/or dumb, esp. unintelligent

>>8958101
>literature readers view someone who hasn't read a play by Shakespeare as barely human
nobody does that

>>8958108
So you think that the abstract ideas of art should be analyzed the same amount but individual examples should not? What are you even saying here?

>>8958107
>Hasn't even read Yeats because he thinks he's too deep

>>8958101
No?
>“Some people have lives; some people have music.”
― John Green

>“Fairy tales only happen in movies."
― George Melies

>>8958115
Okay that was hyperbolic but what I'm trying to get at is that some avid readers will view people who are not well read as unintelligent where as you would be hard pressed to find music and film consumers who feel the same way about someone who doesn't participate in their hobby.

>>8958118
This is my last response to you. I'm saying that there are astounding works in each respective art that deserve deep analysis. There are also less than stellar pieces from each field that do not deserve any discourse.

>>8958131
>some avid readers will view people who are not well read as unintelligent
this is generally true, though

>you would be hard pressed to find music and film consumers who feel the same way about someone who doesn't participate in their hobby
that's because literally everyone listen to music and watches movies. and if you're saying you've never met someone whose pretentious about not having seen "classic" film or classical music... ooh boy, you're in for a treat: >>>/mu/

>>8958142
Sure /mu/ might scoff at those with basic tastes but I don't think they view those people as less intelligent they just view them as having bad taste.

>>8958156
People who don't read are objectively less intelligent. The only thing worse than not reading is reading kid's books like Harry Potter as an adult. Think about it: when you read Harry Potter passively, without knowing anything else, you're consuming cliches and ideas that will influence your worldview and make it simpler.

>>8958164
Listening to Katy Perry all day is also feeding your mind cliches but that doesn't make you less intelligent.

>>8958178
>>8958156
nobody learns when they listen to music.
when you read, you learn. its not that "not reading makes you dumb", its the fact that if you never read you're never smart to begin with.

Cinephiles, audiophiles, bibliophiles, etc. are all fucking garbage as far as I'm concerned. No depth of knowledge, no awareness of theory.

Books, not movies or music, have shaped the way people think for millennia.
Books are better for normies because they are more demanding than the other two art forms and force people to use their brain more actively.
They are also associated with knowledge because you learn by reading a serious book about a subject, not watching some diluted documentary.

>>8958206
I'm not talking about educational books. Those obviously make someone knowledgeable in a certain subject. My objection pertains solely to fictional literature.

>>8958192
sylvano bussotti and other make you think when you listen. can't i learn if i'm thinking?

>>8958221
Ok. My first two points still stand

>>8958205
what about doggophiles?

>>8958239
Music has shaped the way people think for millennia as well.

>>8958226
that's a rarity. and the information content of music is always much, much, much, much, much lower than the written word. music is primarily emotional response (or dance)

>>8958247
citation needed.

>>8958221
>I'm not talking about educational books
>My objection pertains solely to fictional literature.
those two are not exclusive.

>>8958247
Really? Could you give me some examples comparable to Homer's works or the holy texts?

>>8958007
But this is different than them saying music and movies are all pleb.

>>8958019
My diary desu

>>8958039
>RANDOM PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET MUST DECIDE WHAT I SPEND MY TIME DOING!

>>8958250
would you considered an expresstivity of a musician and the affect it has on the listener lesser to the author

>>8958291
Apples and oranges, why can't you understand that?

You must have read so few books.

>>8958291
that is, is an "emotional response" less than response from information content

>>8958291
>that sentence
at least you tried

>>8958296
Apples and oranges, why can't you understand that?

You must have listened to so few songs.

Now see how the first one is arrogant, but the second is fucking ridiculous?

>>8958298
no idea what you're asking me. literature can have both emotional response and concrete information content. music is abstract.

this thread should get deleted. OP's argument has been thoroughly disputed but every time he's argued into a corner, he stops responding and starts replying to someone else.

>>8958314
What you perceive as my replies are not mine. Most replies to myself have been answered.

File: 1483716252216.jpg (8KB, 296x296px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 296x296px

>using archaic formal syntax in order to appear refined, intelligent or reasonable when defending an incorrect point

Summary of this thread tbqhwu

>>8957927
Trump didn't read any lit and look where he ended up.

>>8957917
>espouse on
Jesus Christ stop trying to sound intellectual when you clearly aren't. It comes across as horribly pretentious.

Interesting point, though.

>>8959396

>interesting point

You're not so bright yourself, this thread pops up atleast a few times a week in all different forms, the main one being wah someone hurt my feelings and my tastes got shit on.

>>8958101

I dunno, I've stopped being an elitist in my old age but if you pushed me I'd definitely say that anybody calling themselves a 'film buff' who hadn't seen a film by, I dunno, Bergman, Pasolini, Tarkovsky or even somebody like Antonioni was fucking kidding themselves.

>>8958101

They actually do though.

You think film buffs don't look down on the masses when they rush to watch the next transformers?

Likewise, do you think music buffs have a high opinion of Justin Bieber fans?

You see it more with literature because the barrier of entry is simply higher. Watching a movie or listening to music is a passive activity, the average person makes no effort in doing either of the two. Surely you've noticed most consider watching a movie or listening to music a leisure activity, but not reading.

However, reading a book requires constant effort. When everyone watches movies and listens to music, everyone is legitimized in the opinions they have over those mediums. If you ask someone on the street what their favorite movies and bands are, they are likely to give an answer. If you ask them the same question but for books, it's possible you might not receive an answer.

The inaccessibility of books might create a more elitist attitude within those who read seriously, but don't fool yourself into thinking that's only true for books. Anyone that dedicates himself to something naturally becomes more elitist in that domain.

>>8958032
true tbqhwyf

>>8959399

The statement was probably an olive branch because he was too afraid of an e-confrontation as a consequence of his criticism.
Pretty pathetic tbqh

File: 5321256-cool-and-trendy-kid-with-sunglasses-isolated-over-white-background.jpg (31KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x450px

>>8957917
>posts movie based on a book

>>8958042
actually an autist would find enjoyment in literature more easily than neurotypical person.

>>8957917
And yet here you are, trying to start some petty quarrel over it like a school kid.

Am I a consumer if I only get books from the library.

>>8961799
And fail to punctuate correctly?