https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/06/ 27/books/essay-books-mak

it really is true

if most of what you came to believe is the result of just latching onto whatever you read, giving problems no independent thought of your own, you're not particularly smart

File: 1488063693413 (1).gif (46KB, 600x173px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x173px

>>9160383
>think for himself
>thinking that your thoughts aren't 100% from outside sources

>>9160383
maybe this makes sense, when you're not a writer, in which instance reading always represents an attention to your profession/vocation

if the reading isn't elsewhere directed, yeah, doing nothing else than it will degrade your mind

Ah, nice and reductive, just how I like my New York Times

She could make this argument against any form of media or outside influence like institutionalized education, religion, etc

It just seems disingenuous to target books of all things, when there's such a variety of them from a diverse body of authors, written from diametrically opposed viewpoints, often in critique of one another

>>9160383
>https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/books/essay-books-make-you-a-boring-person.html

why the fuck was this article even written? What fucking message of great importance could come from this?

> this just in, people who brag about shit are annoying

NO SHIT SHERLOCK

>>9160476
Highly literary people keep slipping to either side of the blue-team party line, and keep defending their conduct with unacceptable elegance. They see but one solution: shame their books off them.

It really annoys me some utter cunt got paid to write this inane garbage.

Fuck these kikes

The ending of the article:

The point is this: There are two very different ways to use books. One is to provoke our own judgments, and the other, by far the more common, is to make such conclusions unnecessary. If we wish to embrace the first, we cannot afford to be adulatory of books in the manner of Moskowitz; we must be aggressive. Even a hint of idolatry disables the mind. ''Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon have given; forgetful that Cicero, Locke and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote these books,'' Emerson reminded us -- at a time when he was, admittedly, already a middle-aged man in a library.

Perhaps the best lesson of books is not to venerate them -- or at least never to hold them in higher esteem than our own faculties, our own experience, our own peers, our own dialogues. Books are not the pure good that the festival crowds are sometimes told: you can learn anything from a book -- or nothing. You can learn to be a suicide bomber, a religious fanatic or, indeed, a Bush supporter as easily as you can learn to be tolerant, peace-loving and wise. You can acquire unrealistic expectations of love as readily as, probably more readily than, realistic ones. You can learn to be a sexist or a feminist, a romantic or a cynic, a utopian or a skeptic. Most disturbing, you can train yourself to be nothing at all; you can float forever like driftwood on the current of text; you can be as passive as a person in an all-day movie theater, as antisocial as a kid holed up with a video game, and at the same time more conceited than both.

Those are the dangers. But there are riches. And we can find them, if only we disperse the pious fog that is gathering around book culture. At their best, books are invitations to fight, not calls to prayer. Consecration injures them. We do better to argue with them than to caress their spines. We do better to wrestle with our writers as Jacob with the angel than to worship them as saviors.

>>9160580
so tldr: Challenge your author's thinking?

>>9160544
You're stupid.

>>9160383
>reading the new york times

good goy

That's a retarded opinion. Of course if you read stupid fiction and take everything as gospel, you end up as a boring person.
But reading is not the issue, the personality structure is and reading widely is supposed to help to confront diverse opinions and learn to articulate your own.

Good bait though.

So basically, 'critically engage the stuff you're reading' and 'don't brag about reading as though it's an inherently superior pastime'? I guess I agree, but pretty pointless article.

>>9160617
nou

File: 1487887124498.jpg (17KB, 440x228px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 440x228px

>>9160580
>You can learn to be a suicide bomber, a religious fanatic or, indeed, a Bush supporter as easily as you can learn to be tolerant, peace-loving and wise.

>>9160476

It's pretty confusing. Someone wrote this and the paper decided it was a good idea to publish it. But, yeah, there's no good reason for it to exist. There's no real point to it and there was never any great discussion over the value of books that this could be considered a part of.

The only possible reason for its existence is to make ignorant people who don't read feel better about themselves, which is a strange message coming from a newspaper that presumably would like people to keep reading it.

>>9160406

It's not really that valid. People who read tend to do all the shit that other people do, except they just play less video games, watch less inconsequential videos on youtube, and jerk off less, and use that time to read. There's no downside. It's not like readers don't have all the life experiences that I assume would give them "original thoughts."

People who read a lot also tend to be exposed to a wider range of views. They aren't changing their beliefs every book they read. People learn pretty quickly to think critically and discard ideas that they don't agree with. In my experience, most people who don't read much just believe the same asinine things the media tells them or all their dumb friends believe. They are as much slaves to a hivemind as any reader could be.

Anybody else here confused as to how """"comedy"""" articles like this ever get published? Who the fuck genuinely fins them funny? It's so cringey.

>>9160670
>its existence is to make ignorant people who don't read feel better about themselves

My thoughts exactly.

>People who read tend to do all the shit that other people do, except they just play less video games etc.

Precisely.

>>9160406
except that noone fucking does that

>>9160580
>playing videos games by yourself is "antisocial" behavior

I wish people would learn what antisocial means.

I also don't see what's wrong with being "nothing at all." Does this bitch honestly think she matters in the grand scheme of things and anything gives a fuck how interesting and unique she is?

>>9160580
>antisocial

this writer is an idiot

>>9160406
This implies that no one is capable of internalizing information

>>9160687
True. I think she's just jealous of people who enjoy reading, because she clearly doesn't.

>>9160686
I know plenty of people who do this. Instead of analyzing issues they just kind of latch on to whatever makes them feel good, and rationalize from there. With readers this is generally grosser because they tend to think their viewpoints hold credibility and that they are smarter than everyone else just because their views are backed by books, even thought they haven't had a critical thought in their lives

LMAOing my fanny off at all of the pissed of psuedointellectual book worshippers ITT who got absolutely BTFO and don't know what to do about it (I guess because their books didn't teach them to think for themselves, like music does)

File: Fatdora.jpg (52KB, 455x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 455x450px

>>9160486
>They see but one solution

>>9160743

Why even bother? Surely you can find something that would actually BTFO the pseuds here. This article isn't that something. It's a vapid pile of shit. You can do better, kiddo.

>>9160580
Thanks for teaching me to critically analyze what people write.

After a thorough analysis of your post I came to the conclusion you're a retard.

>>9160413
>leave a child in a dark room
>it will have no thoughts at all

>>9160383
>Hazlitt

Wasn't Hazlitt a learned reader?

lmao the female writer btfo of lit type numale pseuds

Someone got paid to write this while you're all unemployed 'writers'. That's the true BTFO

>>9160383
>It is not because something comes between two covers that it is inherently superior to what passes on a screen or arrives on the airwaves.
This is one of those statements that appeals to your common sense, but is actually demonstrably false. This bitch needs to read McLuhan and Carr. The form by which the message is transmitted affects how the message is perceived. Reading encourages concentration, which aids retention.

I don't see a real problem with the article.
This board is awful

>>9160383
It's true. There's no substitute for being interesting. Reading books doesn't make you any more interesting than watching the tv tube or masturbating frantically five times a day.

That said, this article is just a dumb person trying to compensate for being dumb.

>>9162887
This girl got paid like $500 because of the "exposure" and "prestige" associated with writing for the NYT. She lives off her parents and doesn't understand that everything she thinks she is was decided for her by a marketing direction firm ten years ago. She's trendy.

>>9163002
This is fucking stupid and wrong. People who watch tv aren't interesting

>>9163029
Reading books doesn't make you interesting either. Being interesting makes you interesting. You either have it or you don't.

>>9163058
Gathering experiences makes you interesting. Books let you peek at other peoples' experiences

It's the complete opposite in fact. Bloom was quite right when he said that reading classics makes you more interesting to yourself and to others. Not cultivating yourself necesarily mean your identity will be a product of consumerist society ; the classics are a bastion of authentic culture.

''Think for yourself'' Sounds noble on paper, but the reality is that you cannot produce any original or relevant thought unless you are well read. For practical purposes, I will simply say that you cannot really think outside the system. If such is the case, which path will lead towards relevant ideas, the path of not reading or the path of reading? That answer should be obvious.

>>9163070
Why are books except from being a product of consumerist society? They are a part of the system.

File: mybooks.png (116KB, 495x227px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 495x227px

>>9163068
That's a rationalization. You're not getting the benefit of the experience, you're getting the rendered-down, filtered version of the experience provided by a person who probably has some type of emotional attachment making him want you to feel a certain way. It's not even close to the same thing as real experience.

Additionally, how do books let you peer into the experiences of others and TV/cinema/Cosmo do not?

Reading books does not make you interesting, you need to do other things, and if you build your identity on a foundation of "literary book person" don't expect it to matter to people who don't self-identify that way as well.

>>9163076

They are, everything can be, depending on your view of the thing, but surely you'll admit there's a difference between say, a penguins edition of Keat's poems and a top 50 song playing in a supermarket? Thing that were produced before the event of our society I would argue are more authentic. Furthermore, I don't think I'm saying anything radical when I say that a novel by a good author has more value than a novel by a bad one.

Ultimately, part of your opinions and taste are going to come from somewhere, would you rather have them come from someone intelligent (Ie: author X) or from popular thing Y? Lastly, reading intelligent things will allow you to develop the critical thinking and taste necessary to appraise what is good from what is not.

>>9160383
Pretty soon it will be
>Having your own opinions makes you a stiff! Just listen to us!

>>9162862

It'll think about the dark room dipshit.

Say I'm boring to my face. You'll end up dead with a .50 cal lodged in your intestines.

>>9162862
Not if he has never received any stimuli before that

>>9163095
Distilled experience is still a glimpse into human nature, and a glimpse into the lives of people you normally wouldn't be able to connect with.

What distinguishes literature from film is that literature is the direct voice of its authors, while film is the author's words expressed through a more subjective, visual medium, and filtered through actors

File: 1488074428139.jpg (185KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 720x540px

>>9160383
>female author
>horrible 5th gradesque setup
>Jew York Times
>insipid clickbait controversy
sounds about right

>trying to shame people for wanting to be well cultured so they'll instead become thoughtless drones who only consume the propaganda the media feeds them
nice try liberals

>>9160383
I don't get it. Why don't my shitposts get published by the New York Times? This bitch isn't even good at it.

>>9160383
It's been scientifically proven there's a correlation between reading and intelligence. Comparing it against TV for example is foolish, since the latter is a passive medium while you actively have to read a book. Active vs passive...which is more boring? Requires critical thinking? The answer is obvious if you aren't fishing for ad revenue with sensationalist garbage.

>>9160383
>all books are crime or fantasy books
okay.

>>9160383
>people like these think their essays are interesting and well thought out
i am so fucking embarrassed

All I know is that I can't interact with other people and books make me feel less alone. Is that really so bad?

>>9160743

>like music does

Go on? Genuinely curious here. Or are you just baiting?

>>9160686
Look at the board you're currently on.

File: 1465481519199.jpg (180KB, 1367x1692px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1367x1692px

>by cristina nehring
lel, to the trash it goes

>>9162898

>giving a genuine response to this

man down

F

>>9160494
>>9160544
Aw were you triggered by da meanie woman's meanie words?

>>9160623
It's not just that, no one who regularly consumes any other form of media wears it like a badge of honor like book shits do, they're still in the same "look, I can read!" mindset of a first grader.

>>9160699
>get btfo
>haha, you're just jealous xd

>>9160383
Whoever wrote this is a (and I don't say this lightly) retard

>>9163257
There is also a "correlation" between playing video games and intelligence if you ask the right person, what's your point?

>>9163070
Look at you, immediately going straight to using some classical writer or person to validate your argument, you proved the article right.

>2004
Sage report hide

>>9160544

This.

>>9160383
Translation:
You read, but you are stupid. I also read. but I am better than you.

Why?

Because I am S E L F A W A R E
I think she has some good points, but she's doing the same thing she's accusing others of.

>>9160383
So basically the whole article is a clickbaity rant derivative of Schopenhauer's "On Thinking For Yourself" but not nearly as well detailed or witty?

Maybe if the author did read, she wouldn't have written this pointless "essay." That being said, it's not like there isn't some truth to what's she saying, even if Schopenhauer said it better hundreds of years ago. I don't even know why /lit/ is so against this article considering it's more directed towards booktubers, which /lit/ generally hates. She is talking about /lit/ a little bit but only the dumb shitposters really. If you've had a decent discussion here you're pretty much out of the realm of what the article is criticizing.

File: 1370589624523.jpg (61KB, 437x437px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 437x437px

>>9163823

>finding a reason to namedrop schopenhauer to refute a clickbait article.

stop doing shit like this lad

>>9163619

Way to ignore my entire post. I'm right btw.

>>9163846
How am I going to say the article is derivative without saying what it's derivative of?

>>9163846
Damn this image takes me back like five years

>>9163661

It's funny how the frantic anti-Bush rhetoric in the article is exactly the same as the anti-Trump rhetoric now. Really makes you think.

>>9163823

>If you've had a decent discussion here you're pretty much out of the realm of what the article is criticizing.

Which means that the article is uniformly and unequivocally directed towards all of /lit/.

File: bush.jpg (95KB, 1310x873px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1310x873px

>>9164118

Yeah, that is sort of interesting. Let's hope Trump doesn't annihilate the US economy with debt, doesn't destroy the middle east forever, doesn't cause the resurgence and proliferation of violent and virulent islamism through failed police actions, and doesn't cause the biggest migrant crisis in modern history which will more likely than not lead to the collapse of Europe and the irrevocable destruction of western civilization and hegemony.

Honestly, I can't even hate the guy. Looking at his art, it's obvious he is just retarded, not malevolent.

>>9163776
Well, self-awareness leading to a vigilant critical eye is the entire point, no? Claiming intellectual superiority or, maybe better stated, greater intellectual soundness is justified in such a case.

>>9164147

Islam has always been virulent and violent though. In the 1970s and 1980s they were hijacking airliners and blowing people up, and Bushie was still getting coked out in Yale. Let's not forget who attacked first.

>>9164147

>doesn't cause the resurgence and proliferation of violent and virulent islamism

Islam has always been this bad, the short break the world was given while Muslims have been weak was never going to last.

>doesn't cause the biggest migrant crisis in modern history

Both of these were already done under Obama/Bush

>Cristina Nehring is an award-winning essayist, scholar, travel writer and memoirist known for her spirited and contrarian reflections on issues as diverse as dating and drinking, Shakespeare, love poetry and intellectual snobs.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>9160743
> Laughing My Ass Off my fanny off

Subtle.

>>9164147

retarded? I think his art is pretty introspective and vulnerable to be painting himself naked in the bath tub. It's not bad at all for a president. Sure the techniques not the best but i like what he's going for.

>>9160580

>You can learn to be a suicide bomber, a religious fanatic or, indeed, a Bush supporter as easily as you can learn to be tolerant, peace-loving and wise.

Lol, what a dichotomy. It's clear what side the author thinks they're on.

>But there are riches. And we can find them, if only we disperse the pious fog that is gathering around book culture.

Author is clearly a student of the School of Resentment. Sorry, but the literary world necessarily requires a degree of prestige/exclusivity/canon.

>>9163118
>Medieval objectivist thought
You've got some catching up to do m8

>6 billion people agree on anything

Reading will make you interesting to people who read. Reading and thinking will make you more interesting to people that read. Both of these in some cases will make you less interesting to people that do neither.

Read or think or don't, your stock will rise and fall simultaneously.

So when I say this cunt needs to read AND think more, that says as much about her as me.